Show the 2.0i some love
- Thread starter blackabbot
- Start date
ESP said::bonk:
The thread is called "Show the 2.0i some love" not "Mack tell's everyone where they have gone wrong" and waffle's on.
FYI Brakes are not a option, they kind of come as what you get, as required for car / curb weight.
Fyi learn the difference between when someone writes "spec" they don't mean options do they. I guess I leave you for your 2.0 luv in then!
My 2008 318 has the N43 engine, I've done 78K in that car with zero problems so I'm unclear why the 2.0 Z4 should be unreliable?
I do run it on very good quality oil as it's a hot running engine but so far the cars faultless.
My Z4 is the 3.0 M54 2005, It's a superb engine but for normal road use it's not necessary to have the 3.0 to drive in traffic, or cruise up the motorway, plus I have to add I upgraded the brakes on mine to 330I spec as the original setup felt less that confidence inspiring, so I can see 2.0 owners needing an upgrade as well!
Dynamically the 2.0 is lighter with less gubbins in the car and very importantly has a shorter engine block moving it's mass further back in the bay and improving the balance over the six cylinder, so handling wise the 2.0 could be a damn good track car, it's certainly going to be more agile than the six cylinder cars, and as both share the same basic suspension there's no reason why you couldn't upgrade a 2.0 car to a very good spec!
My only criticism of the 2.0 lump is it's not a particularly revvy engine and sounds a bit strained over 5000rpm, so the six is a nicer lump to drive behind but in reality on the road a 2.0 will do the job!
I do run it on very good quality oil as it's a hot running engine but so far the cars faultless.
My Z4 is the 3.0 M54 2005, It's a superb engine but for normal road use it's not necessary to have the 3.0 to drive in traffic, or cruise up the motorway, plus I have to add I upgraded the brakes on mine to 330I spec as the original setup felt less that confidence inspiring, so I can see 2.0 owners needing an upgrade as well!
Dynamically the 2.0 is lighter with less gubbins in the car and very importantly has a shorter engine block moving it's mass further back in the bay and improving the balance over the six cylinder, so handling wise the 2.0 could be a damn good track car, it's certainly going to be more agile than the six cylinder cars, and as both share the same basic suspension there's no reason why you couldn't upgrade a 2.0 car to a very good spec!
My only criticism of the 2.0 lump is it's not a particularly revvy engine and sounds a bit strained over 5000rpm, so the six is a nicer lump to drive behind but in reality on the road a 2.0 will do the job!
ESP said:
BMW don't seem to 'do' recalls unless it's safety related and they figure the legal risks outweigh the finances. No way will they advertise, admit or even entertain the idea that any other fault is common. Full stop.
E85 VANOS seals, rear springs, cracked 296 wheels, window regulators, misty fogs, EPS! wet roof motors!!! E86 tailagate, N52 water pumps, N46 cracked manifold/sensors/cat's and timing chain issues and so on. It's just unfortunate that the N46 issues seem more prevalent, often tricky to diagnose and so get expensive to fix.
But for what it's worth when I test drove a 2.0 it felt more agile and less nose heavy than six's so I suspect it can punch above it's weight in the twisty stuff
My Facelift 2.0i sport hassynthedup said:MACK said:
My face lift 2.0 has a 6 speed box
6 speed box
M sport suspension
M sport multi function steering wheel
M sport Heated half leather seats
18" Alloys
just to name a few extras, not to shabby hey
I'm so glad I spent time starting this thread 
Problems with a 2.0 no that cant be right surelyMarlon said:andysat said:I loved mine-it was just the Yellow engine light that needed thousands spending to try to sort it out-never did find out the problem
Dare I say - I had the exact same problem with my 2.0(it was intermittent fortunately so I didn't spend on it - traded it in)
by the way love your car MarlonEwazix said:But for what it's worth when I test drove a 2.0 it felt more agile and less nose heavy than six's so I suspect it can punch above it's weight in the twisty stuff
Bang on the mark! Steerings sharp and feedback is perfect.
On a Track like Brands it'll or Oulton Park it'll be awesome, Silverstone has too many long straights though. I have done loads of track days but not in the Z4, but general country road hoons. I seem to remember on a previous Essex and Herts Z4-forum meet the heavier cars could'nt hack the pace
blackabbot said:My Facelift 2.0i sport has
6 speed box
M sport suspension
M sport multi function steering wheel
M sport Heated half leather seats
18" Alloys
just to name a few extras, not to shabby hey
Snap, but with full leather M Sport seats, and the uprated 10 speaker system.
M sport multi function steering wheel = the extra chunky one too.
Theres other facelifts I've seen out there with Sat-Nav and cruise control from the shop.
Marlon said:
Ha - thanks Marlon - it's nice to be recognised for supporting ownership of the 2 litre :lol:
Now then blackabbot - I was delighted to see your title and enjoyed reading through your well presented post
I've always championed the 2 litre. I think it's an overlooked and maligned Zed. I had mine for 19 months and loved it! I didn't know what I was buying but fell in love with it on sight. It was only later, through this forum, that a learnt more about the Z4 and have consequently moved on to a 3.0si (brilliant Zed) and now the M version (that I'm slowly getting the way I want and learn more every drive).
It's disappointing that the thread has got a bit combative - I have to say that there are a lot of knowledgeable folk on this forum and they are well worth listening too. For me much of what has been posted makes sense - including that the 2 litre engine has it's issues - mainly exhaust manifolds cracking (my independent said he would weld it up if it did - it didn't) and Engine Management Lights which can be difficult to sort due to sensitive sensors (get a plug in and cancel). I don't know about the chain tensioner issues but I'm listening . . .
Despite that I find a lot of the comments about the 2 litre are more based upon it's lack of power and the perceived greater smoothness of the 6 cylinder motor. Regarding the lack of power, well on the road the driver can make a huge difference and I had great fun chasing 'bigger' engine Zeds on forum runs and revving out my 2 litre on the back roads of Northumberland - absolutely brilliant fun. I've also driven with some terrific 2 litre drivers (Chesherman, Geezer and others) that make the most of and have surprised quite a few with, the capabilities of their Zeds. I'm convinced the 2 litre handles better in some circumstances due to the lighter engine (and location of the engine as already mentioned). Keeping the engine on boil is all part of the fun of the 2 litre. I always found it a willing and smooth engine and can't understand when folk say the 6 cylinder is smoother - for a 4 pot I thought it was incredibly smooth and would rev all day at high revs then start the next morning ready for more - brilliant. The only roughness is with the slightly hunting tickover that seems at odds with the rest of the rev range (they all do it).
I came from a 6 year love affair with a Mk 2 MX5 and then the extreme of a TVR Chimeara to the Zed (all after years of motorcycles) - the 2 litre Zed offered terrific looks, fun involving handling, and relatively licence friendly top end commitment in the lower gears.
The only draw back was the gulf between 2nd and 3rd gear - changing down to second left too few revs to play with and changing up to 3rd dropped the revs too far - frustratingly didn't quite work - close ratio box anyone
I did move to a 3 litre after long consideration - so much was said about the character of the 6 cylinder that I had to try one - it took all of about 200 yards and a couple of roundabouts (to check the handling) before I was convinced :lol: Brilliant.
The M initially caused me more anguish (check my posts and see
) waited a long time for the M I wanted. I've found the M a very different kind of Zed and much of my initial concern about it has been answered by reinstating the rear muffler and back boxes - it's amazing how psychologically it's allowed me to use the higher rev range - probably tells you more about me than the M though. I was lucky enough to keep both my 3 litre and my M for 6 months before deciding which to keep. In the end it was the specialness of the M and it's greater capabilities that won me over - that and my wife felt it was a safer (in having more capability) sports car.I'm lucky to have had the opportunity to have all 3 versions. Having a 3 litre made driving easier - extra punch for overtakes and a torquer engine at the bottom end. The M has made driving more interesting and challenging. I've enjoyed all three versions but would always champion the 2 litre as a great fun machine which needs the driver to make the very best of it and this can be done on the road - that's where the enjoyment and fun comes in. You have to be careful on the road in the 3 litre and the M (very careful) if you want to get near their potential. It's cheaper to run as well!
Would I be happy to return to a 2 litre - well yes of course!
