Show the 2.0i some love

[blackabbot]

After all the bad press the 2.0 engine has had on this forum and the heated debates regarding the reliability of the 3's versus the 2's engines I was wondering if past or present E85 2.0 owners would give there thoughts and views on 2.0 ownership.This thread is in no way meant to inflame the debate further, rather to give a more balanced view for potential Z4 owners.
I bought my 2.0i Sport in Febuary this year and have done 2478 miles in the last four months , it has not thrown up any issues whatsoever ,Everything in the car works as it should. I knew what the power output of the engine was when I bought it and knew it would not win any prizes on track days, that being said I don't drive "like miss daisy" and find the four pot more than meets my needs for this great looking roadster. the handling in corners and the steering is superb as is the 6 speed gearbox, driving mainly around north wales the 2.0i certainly does not feel under powered or as one member who's recent reply to a post said "you're revving the tits off the 4 pot to get any power out" I havn't found that to be true.
Some members regard the four pot to be the least desirable and unreliable of all the power units in the E85 and their entitled to their opinion, and I respect that as they are more knowledgeable regarding the Z4 then I am.
but here is the mot history of my Z first used 30th January 2008
19th January 2011 mileage 20,687 pass
13th January 2012 " 25,369 pass
9th January 2013 " 29,162 pass
29th January 2014 " 34, 050 Fail...............Reason for failure
1. n/side front tyre has ply or cords exposed
2. o/side front tyre has ply or cords exposed
1. advisory front brake pad/s wearing thin
29th January 2014 " 34,050 pass
22nd January 2015 " 39,036 pass
15th January 2016 " 44,920 pass 1. advisory offside rear tyre worn close to legal limit
6th Febuary 2017 " 48,705 pass
I bought the car on the 4th feb 2017 and checked the mot history online before I bought it, not bad for a nine year old Z.
I don't post all the time but I'm on the forum every day and although not mechanically minded I love to see what members are doing to their cars and respect and admire the love and attention to detail they give to their cars, I know the majority of E85 owners on this forum have the six cylinder engine, but I'm just trying to stand up for the little guy, the one driving a four pot around north wales daily with a big grin on his face and a semi-lob on every time I look in my side mirrors and see those lovely flared wheel arches and don't get me started on the rear end, as you can tell I love my car and who knows I may buy a 3 litre in the future, but at the moment I'm happy with the four pot, Surely I can't be the only person who's bought a 2.0i that was cared for and maintained by a previous owner and has no problems or issues, so come on guys if you own or have owned a four pot give us your views.
And to all the six cylinder guys as the thread title say
SHOW ME SOME LOVE

 

[RyanB88]

Its lacking in torque, BHP, engine note and reliability

When the purchase price differences are none existent I don't see why you'd opt for a bland, under powered 2 litre when you could go for a creamy straight six!

But if you're happy that's what matters. As I've had performance cars for the last 10 years near enough, I couldn't ever downgrade to a none performance car like the 2 litre E85. But if you're happy who cares what anyone else has to say!

 

[keith777]

Well said that man !
I've had my 2 litre for 5 months now and so far no problems !
Well apart from yesterday when getting it out of the garage found the front coil Spring had broken !
But that's a problem we all have to put up with no matter what engine size.
Cheers Keith.

 

[wingnut]

Happy with mine.
Car used as a daily drive, I have had the car 15 months and covered 18,000 miles, no engine problems at all during that time and car is now 11 years old with 57,000 miles on the clock.
Previous history shows rocker cover gasket replaced, and front suspension bushes. I have replaced front spring, brake pressure sensors, and exhaust bracket and that's it other than tyres etc.
The engine oil has not required topping up throuought the 18,000 miles other than at service which was done after I bought the car and at 12,000.

 

[philbo909]

I said you have to rev the tits off it to get any power out and it's true, but unlike it's 6 pot sisters, the 2l is a good mx5 alternative, revvy engines in light-ish cars that love to corner. In the year i had the 2 litre it gave me no other issues except getting left in the dust on straights

 

[Fox889]

with a big grin on his face and a semi-lob

Buy a six pot & you'll have a 'full lob'!

 

[Fox889]

Each to his own Blackabbot, doesn't matter if it's a four pot six pot or whatever, it's your car so give it all the love you can!

 

[Marlon]

Where's Paulgs1000 when you need him - he drives an ///M now but started in a 2 litre and . . . (well I will leave him to say)

 

[step_change]

Take into account that this is an enthusiast's forum and consequently, you'll get a skewed opinion sample of people waxing-lyrical about the 2.5 and 3 litre (and M versions) and less complementary at the 2.0L.
Sure get the 3.0L if one comes up in the condition you like and at your budget. But the 2.0L is a nice car as well.

 

[ESP]

Its lacking in torque, BHP, engine note and reliability

When the purchase price differences are none existent I don't see why you'd opt for a bland, under powered 2 litre when you could go for a creamy straight six!

:| first reply and its a 3.0lt owner telling us about this reliability issue?

How unreliable?
Not as reliable as the 3.0lt (but yet still above average for reliability) or is there some apparent flaw that 4pots cant drive more than50miles with out needing a engine rebuild?

I think a bit of realistic reality, and less 'supposed' and 'Word of Mouth' as a reply.

I was AWARE the engine in my car, the stats and the figures. While looking for my car before buying i drove many 2.2, 2.5 and 3.0lt models. My final choice wasn't based on engine, but as a whole.

I have had my Z4 over 6 years now and literally not one issue

 

[synthedup]

Its lacking in torque, BHP, engine note and reliability

When the purchase price differences are none existent I don't see why you'd opt for a bland, under powered 2 litre when you could go for a creamy straight six!

:| first reply and its a 3.0lt owner telling us about this reliability issue?

How unreliable?
Not as reliable as the 3.0lt (but yet still above average for reliability) or is there some apparent flaw that 4pots cant drive more than50miles with out needing a engine rebuild?

I think a bit of realistic reality, and less 'supposed' and 'Word of Mouth' as a reply.

I was AWARE the engine in my car, the stats and the figures. While looking for my car before buying i drove many 2.2, 2.5 and 3.0lt models. My final choice wasn't based on engine, but as a whole.

I have had my Z4 over 6 years now and literally not one issue

Agreed, some people just jump on the band wagon and sometimes with no experience of what they're talking about.

I have had my 2.0i for over 5 years and no issues to report. I have it on Kw coilvers and 19" Csl and I think its a great DD. Whether im doing 3 miles to the train station of 150 miles to Hereford its a pleasure to drive.

The max speed limit in the UK is 70, and it has no problem getting to 70 in a straight line or 70 round a corner!!!

And before someone says it, I don't do track days, I wouldn't use a 3.0 z4!

 

[Machine monkey]

As a fully paid up 3.0l z4 owner who is not happy with the levels of power that delivers.

Saying that my wife’s best friend owns a 2.0l. Witch i seem to be maintain... And i get to drive it a fully enjoy the experience. You can use the power and drive it with more enthusiasm than you can 3.0l or 3.2 on the road safely.

 

[Wong]

7 years ago I went to the BMW dealer and saw a Z4 2.0 and fell in love with the lines of the roadster. I did not care about the size of the engine at that time and bought it the same day.
I use the Z4 as a daily driver and the past 7 years drove more than 90000 miles in summer and winter. All on summer tyres Pirelli P7. I think the 4 pot is a great engine with more than enough power for me. I still enjoy it every drive even in traffic jams.

 

[MACK]

I think we are all well in trenched in our opinions on this but try to remember this came from a newbies thread asking for advice on what to buy within a certain budget etc today. A lot of 2.0 owners are taking what was said very personally which isn't how it was intended, well at least not be me and things snowballed from there.

In the early/mid 2000's (before diesel completely took over) I worked for a company that ran many hundreds of BMW 318i with the N42/46 2.0 engine in its company car fleet. We also had hundreds of 3 and 5 series with various M54/N52 engines. Cars covered anything from 15k to 150k in a 3-4 year period. Yes its fair to say we had engine issues with some of the M54/N52 engined cars, but it was quite rare. The N42/N46 was a major pain with literally hundreds of cars having engine issues of one sort or another.

Couple the above first hand experience to the experience of specialists/engine builders/indies and even private owners. The engine's relative lack of power/smoothness compared to its stablemates, the alarming fact that BMW felt the need to revise the timing chain tensioner on the N42/N46 again as late as mid 2016 and the fact that cars are all much of a muchness pricewise then unless MPG and insurance are absolutely critical the 2.0 doesn't really stack up to a buyer today.

If existing 2.0 owners looked at the argument dispassionately instead of taking to heart whats been said I don't see a logical argument here today. Of course its entirely possible that many 2.0 wont have a issue, but many will, many more as a percentage compared to the other engined zeds. It also entirely possible that a buyer today will be lucky and pick up a car thats had a fortune spent on it tacking the major issues, something most sellers wont tell you as they dont what a buyer thinking the car is problematic/unreliable.

In fact, just this weekend I advised a member on here who is having issues on a 2.0 that sounds very much like a timing chain issue.

Posting MOT history is completely pointless as its completely irrelevant. Posting I've not had an issue in 2,000 -70,000 miles or 2 months -7 years is a sample size of 1 and doesn't really show anything other than you may have been lucky so far. Other factors include many 2.0 owners who have had many problems over the years will have ditched the car by now and no longer on here.

Here's a scenario, if I gave you a budget to buy a secondhand laptop and just two were available within budget. Both are roughly the same age from the same manufacturer. However one has half the memory/processing power from a chip/harddrive etc that's known to be problematic. Option 2 is faster/quicker and more reliable/stable. Which one are you going to buy?

Exactly.

 

[ESP]

In the early/mid 2000's (before diesel completely took over) I worked for a company that ran many hundreds of BMW 318i with the N42/46 2.0 engine in its company car fleet. We also had hundreds of 3 and 5 series with various M54/N52 engines. Cars covered anything from 15k to 150k in a 3-4 year period. Yes its fair to say we had engine issues with some of the M54/N52 engined cars, but it was quite rare. The N42/N46 was a major pain with literally hundreds of cars having engine issues of one sort or another.

So Have you owned or had a 2.0 BMW yourself?

I am in no doubt that there will be break downs and 1 engine will statistically perform better than another, thats reality. What suggesting is there is some sort of Major engine issue that would require a total recall, and that 2.0 is prone, bound to and will eventually with out any doubt fail. Compare this to Ford, Renault, Vauxhall etc... are you suggesting there 2.0 or equivalent engine's dont have reliability issues.

1 example (all though there are thousands of others) would be VW's 1.8 20v engine that will very often (not always) require a new coil pack before it reaches 50000 miles, this happened twice on a Golf GTi we leased, after 3 years this car had covered over 110 000miles. This was then replaced by a 2.0 118I M SPORT, which after 3 years covered over 100 000, and we kept on the lease for a further 18month, finally returning the car with almost 150 000miles on the clock, with no mechanical problems.

Thats not to say someone else with a similar car might have a issues with in the first 18-24 months of ownership.

No one here is saying the 2.0 is a bullet proof engine, but no one here running a 2.0 seems to have these major constant, engine failures you keep telling us the 2.0 is "Well documented" to have?

 

[MACK]

In the early/mid 2000's (before diesel completely took over) I worked for a company that ran many hundreds of BMW 318i with the N42/46 2.0 engine in its company car fleet. We also had hundreds of 3 and 5 series with various M54/N52 engines. Cars covered anything from 15k to 150k in a 3-4 year period. Yes its fair to say we had engine issues with some of the M54/N52 engined cars, but it was quite rare. The N42/N46 was a major pain with literally hundreds of cars having engine issues of one sort or another.

So Have you owned or had a 2.0 BMW yourself?

I am in no doubt that there will be break downs and 1 engine will statistically perform better than another, thats reality. What suggesting is there is some sort of Major engine issue that would require a total recall, and that 2.0 is prone, bound to and will eventually with out any doubt fail. Compare this to Ford, Renault, Vauxhall etc... are you suggesting there 2.0 or equivalent engine's dont have reliability issues.

1 example (all though there are thousands of others) would be VW's 1.8 20v engine that will very often (not always) require a new coil pack before it reaches 50000 miles, this happened twice on a Golf GTi we leased, after 3 years this car had covered over 110 000miles. This was then replaced by a 2.0 118I M SPORT, which after 3 years covered over 100 000, and we kept on the lease for a further 18month, finally returning the car with almost 150 000miles on the clock, with no mechanical problems.

Thats not to say someone else with a similar car might have a issues with in the first 18-24 months of ownership.

No one here is saying the 2.0 is a bullet proof engine, but no one here running a 2.0 seems to have these major constant, engine failures you keep telling us the 2.0 is "Well documented" to have?

I'm really not trying to get into this again with you, but you don't make it easy!
Seriously mate your snide remark "well documented" WTF!
Your trying to make it sound like this info is buried on the dark web or something and you've got to be a hacker grade internet warrior to find it!

Google "bmw n46 timing chain"

this is first up

http://powerdevelopments.co.uk/bmw-318ci-n42-n46-timing-chain-replacement

and that's just for starters. I think most folks will take more notice of them than you with biased opinion. Seriously are you going to pay someone repair bills if they buy a 2.0 on your advice that then had one of, as you like to put it "well documented" failures?!
No, didn't think so.

All this is about you and your ego, not the facts. It has been since your first post on this topic last week where you unnecessarily laid into people, which was bad enough, the fact you were and still are talking rubbish makes it all the worse!

Yes no car is perfect/immune to failure. But unlike you I can't with a clear conscious advise someone buying today that buying a 2.0 E85 with an engine that has proven itself to be less reliable and comes with less spec as standard when a better equipped, more reliable option is available for near enough the same money makes any sense, just to protect my ego/feelings!

That's not to mention the more subjective factors such as power and smoothness!

Plenty of 2.0 owners sell up and move on to 2.5/3.0 and M's. Never heard of anyone going the other way, clearly there's reasons for that!
But if reliability, power and smoothness etc aren't issues why would they?!

 

[ESP]

I'm really not trying to get into this again with you, but you don't make it easy!

Why is this funny?
(Clearly you are getting into this hence your novel like reply.) :bonk:

Seriously mate your snide remark "well documented" WTF!

Hows that snide?

All this is about you and your ego, not the facts.

How is this about my ego?
(I have a ego?? #Pot #Kettle)

unlike you I can't with a clear conscious advise someone buying today that buying a 2.0 E85 with an engine that has proven itself to be less reliable and comes with less spec as standard when a better equipped

Engine size has no relevance to standard equipment, there are plenty of all models with higher option specs or lower specs. Even so whats that got to do with anything? People have this as a choice when buying a used car, theres always another one if you dont like the spec.

That's not to mention the more subjective factors such as power and smoothness!

While driving i have never heard any complaint or mention a lack of smoothness on the 2.0 engine. Unless its just 'my ego' or i just have a unique 2.0 thats smooth.

How much power do I need to drive to work, or going away at a weekend, or to Sainsburys?
Currently I have always managed to make it there and back (just) im worried now.

Realistically, all this “Smoooth / Power”, how much of whats available do you use and how often? How often are you driving in that power band above 75% close to the redline? In fact how often and for how long are you even above 40% use of the power?

All 2.0 Z4's are Roadsters (convertibles). Although fit for purpose on a motorway for hours on end of driving generally in a straight line, a roadster purpose is for a twisty country road Hoon with the roof down. Its not a GT car, its not a large salon.

As for my conscious its pretty clear. Like i said, i've owned this one many years and i ran another for nearly 5. You have a lot to say about whats online, but haven't actually owned a 2.0, so feel free to write WAR AND PEACE back but im not listening, pretty sure you feel you have a point but i get the feeling no one else is listening.
:bonk:

 

[MACK]

I'm really not trying to get into this again with you, but you don't make it easy!

Why is this funny?
(Clearly you are getting into this hence your novel like reply.) :bonk:

Seriously mate your snide remark "well documented" WTF!

Hows that snide?

All this is about you and your ego, not the facts.

How is this about my ego?
(I have a ego?? #Pot #Kettle)

unlike you I can't with a clear conscious advise someone buying today that buying a 2.0 E85 with an engine that has proven itself to be less reliable and comes with less spec as standard when a better equipped

Engine size has no relevance to standard equipment, there are plenty of all models with higher option specs or lower specs. Even so whats that got to do with anything? People have this as a choice when buying a used car, theres always another one if you dont like the spec.

That's not to mention the more subjective factors such as power and smoothness!

While driving i have never heard any complaint or mention a lack of smoothness on the 2.0 engine. Unless its just 'my ego' or i just have a unique 2.0 thats smooth.

How much power do I need to drive to work, or going away at a weekend, or to Sainsburys?
Currently I have always managed to make it there and back (just) im worried now.

Realistically, all this “Smoooth / Power”, how much of whats available do you use and how often? How often are you driving in that power band above 75% close to the redline? In fact how often and for how long are you even above 40% use of the power?

All 2.0 Z4's are Roadsters (convertibles). Although fit for purpose on a motorway for hours on end of driving generally in a straight line, a roadster purpose is for a twisty country road Hoon with the roof down. Its not a GT car, its not a large salon.

You really have a hang up on this power smoothness thing and completely ignored the reliable aspect in your last post. Why is that would be you finally accepting the truth of the matter. That allow would prevent me recommending the 2.0. As for equipment. Wtf! You have been on here years but still don't seem to know that 2.0 are a lower spec than 2.5s and particularly 3.0s. The 3.0 for example has a 6 speed box, leather electric seats and bigger brakes amongst other things. I really thought someone whos been on here as long as you would know that sort of thing. Evidently I've given you too much credit!

 

[synthedup]

I'm really not trying to get into this again with you, but you don't make it easy!

Why is this funny?
(Clearly you are getting into this hence your novel like reply.) :bonk:

Seriously mate your snide remark "well documented" WTF!

Hows that snide?

All this is about you and your ego, not the facts.

How is this about my ego?
(I have a ego?? #Pot #Kettle)

unlike you I can't with a clear conscious advise someone buying today that buying a 2.0 E85 with an engine that has proven itself to be less reliable and comes with less spec as standard when a better equipped

Engine size has no relevance to standard equipment, there are plenty of all models with higher option specs or lower specs. Even so whats that got to do with anything? People have this as a choice when buying a used car, theres always another one if you dont like the spec.

That's not to mention the more subjective factors such as power and smoothness!

While driving i have never heard any complaint or mention a lack of smoothness on the 2.0 engine. Unless its just 'my ego' or i just have a unique 2.0 thats smooth.

How much power do I need to drive to work, or going away at a weekend, or to Sainsburys?
Currently I have always managed to make it there and back (just) im worried now.

Realistically, all this “Smoooth / Power”, how much of whats available do you use and how often? How often are you driving in that power band above 75% close to the redline? In fact how often and for how long are you even above 40% use of the power?

All 2.0 Z4's are Roadsters (convertibles). Although fit for purpose on a motorway for hours on end of driving generally in a straight line, a roadster purpose is for a twisty country road Hoon with the roof down. Its not a GT car, its not a large salon.

You really have a hang up on this power smoothness thing and completely ignored the reliable aspect in your last post. Why is that would be you finally accepting the truth of the matter. That allow would prevent me recommending the 2.0. As for equipment. Wtf! You have been on here years but still don't seem to know that 2.0 are a lower spec than 2.5s and particularly 3.0s. The 3.0 for example has a 6 speed box, leather electric seats and bigger brakes amongst other things. I really thought someone whos been on here as long as you would know that sort of thing. Evidently I've given you too much credit!

My face lift 2.0 has a 6 speed box

 

[MACK]

I'm really not trying to get into this again with you, but you don't make it easy!

Why is this funny?
(Clearly you are getting into this hence your novel like reply.) :bonk:

Seriously mate your snide remark "well documented" WTF!

Hows that snide?

All this is about you and your ego, not the facts.

How is this about my ego?
(I have a ego?? #Pot #Kettle)

unlike you I can't with a clear conscious advise someone buying today that buying a 2.0 E85 with an engine that has proven itself to be less reliable and comes with less spec as standard when a better equipped

Engine size has no relevance to standard equipment, there are plenty of all models with higher option specs or lower specs. Even so whats that got to do with anything? People have this as a choice when buying a used car, theres always another one if you dont like the spec.

That's not to mention the more subjective factors such as power and smoothness!

While driving i have never heard any complaint or mention a lack of smoothness on the 2.0 engine. Unless its just 'my ego' or i just have a unique 2.0 thats smooth.

How much power do I need to drive to work, or going away at a weekend, or to Sainsburys?
Currently I have always managed to make it there and back (just) im worried now.

Realistically, all this “Smoooth / Power”, how much of whats available do you use and how often? How often are you driving in that power band above 75% close to the redline? In fact how often and for how long are you even above 40% use of the power?

All 2.0 Z4's are Roadsters (convertibles). Although fit for purpose on a motorway for hours on end of driving generally in a straight line, a roadster purpose is for a twisty country road Hoon with the roof down. Its not a GT car, its not a large salon.

As for my conscious its pretty clear. Like i said, i've owned this one many years and i ran another for nearly 5. You have a lot to say about whats online, but haven't actually owned a 2.0, so feel free to write WAR AND PEACE back but im not listening, pretty sure you feel you have a point but i get the feeling no one else is listening.
:bonk:

If legal ownership of a bmw with the n46 engine matters then I have owned over 50. Including a few with "Well documented" issues I bought cheap. In fact if I'm honest the 2008 zed4 we had to sell on in 2014 was the car that gave me a taste for a zed. But when I bought a keeper in 2015 I learned enough from my experience with a 2.0 to not buy one with that engine!

War and peacefair enough put look who talking!