WANTED - 2.0i Sport Roadster

[Geezah]

fugly Datsun indeed! You are right Indiezee, the Japanese do have some quirky styling in their cars which do leave you wondering, its like they've run out of styling ideas and just styled it any old way so they could finish early! But the engines and mechanicals, Wow... gotta respect 3.8 V6 Twin turbo knocking out that many horses!

Anyhow, heres the interior, I couldn't resist the car dressed like that!



and

 

[Silverfox]

Don't be put off by a 2.0, they are a cracking little motor and will give you plenty of fun without hitting your pocket too hard. Its how and where you drive em that makes them fun

 

[aknight]

Hmm I didn't intend to start a forum war with this one!

Yeah my reasoning is that I'm not too fussed with all that extra power/speed at the moment. The running costs are another reasonable point with tax, MPG, insurance and mechanics bills to be considered. I will probably go and test drive a 3.0i to make sure I'm not going to miss it too much.

 

[horseofwar]

I'm probably one of the few that has went from a 3.0l to a 2.0l. Everyone has their individual circumstances so I'm sure you're in the best position to make the right call. For me crawling around Edinburgh bypass in rush hour traffic in a 3.0l doesn't make the most sense so I opted for the frugal, facelifted beastie. Genuinely don't regret it

 

[Geezah]

Hmm I didn't intend to start a forum war with this one!

No worries, it's good to talk!

Blimey Horse, you go through cars like I go through underpants! A bit indecisive when it comes to cars then are we? :?
As a long (ish) term owner of both a 2.0 and a 3.0, how do they compare?

 

[Finisterre]

I own both engines, a 2.0 zed and the 3.0 is in a 5 series touring. I thrash them both. Both engines are okay. I get 19-23 mpg in the five and 34 mpg in the zed. The 2.0 zed will do tiny lanes like it is on rails while the five does A road journeys at speeds the 2.0 cannot match due to the zed's long distance comfort issues.

I suppose the 3.0 litre engine might have a place on B roads but tbh if you need the 3.0 to get past the car in front the opportunity isn't really good enough.

So, imo the idea that the three is the only one to buy is childish penis waving.

I would be interested to try a turbo two litre though. That might work well. Light and nippy.

 

[craig3.2]

Hmm I didn't intend to start a forum war with this one!

Yeah my reasoning is that I'm not too fussed with all that extra power/speed at the moment. The running costs are another reasonable point with tax, MPG, insurance and mechanics bills to be considered. I will probably go and test drive a 3.0i to make sure I'm not going to miss it too much.

Ignore coaldust.......there is a market for 2.0 engines/lower output...look at the mx5 that sells in large numbers to people who enjoy driving them quickly round corners, something you don't need a large engine to do. Others do just go for a cars looks, while performance isn't important to them or running costs do matter to some.

I drive what I do because performance is my priority, not economy,etc.... but do look at insurance quotes for a 2.2/2.5/3.0 as there may not be a lot of difference if you shop around...and the 3.0 still gets 30-38mpg, depending on driving style/journeys etc.

Wouldn't go for a 2.0i myself, but not to be discounted...try e few engine sizes before buying as said though

 

[horseofwar]

Hmm I didn't intend to start a forum war with this one!

No worries, it's good to talk!

Blimey Horse, you go through cars like I go through underpants! A bit indecisive when it comes to cars then are we? :?
As a long (ish) term owner of both a 2.0 and a 3.0, how do they compare?

Indecisive or get bored very easily I'm not sure haha!

With regards to the 2.0 vs 3.0 the two cars I had were quite different
1. Performance- Don't really need to say much here pretty self explanatory but what I will say for me is that when I came back from driving on roads from Glencoe a few weeks ago the ability of the car far outweighed my driving ability on the tight and twisty roads. If you want a civilised blast along some country roads the 2.0 is more than fast enough in my opinion. Be warned though, you will get embarrassed by a good majority of euro boxes in a drag race on the motorway (not that I do that )

2. Comfort- 2.0 much less 'thrashy' in town driving. I have SE spec so 16" wheels and no Msport suspension and it does make a big difference. Nothing worse than driving over cobbled roads in Edinburgh with 18's and stiff suspension. Literally waiting for bits to start falling off the car. The 2.0 sport will be similar to my old 3.0 as I believe they have similar set up (wheels and suspension) which to be fair is fine on smooth roads, just avoid the bumpy stuff!

3. Economy- 3.0 = 29 mpg, 2.0 = 34 mpg on the exact same commute.

4. Spec- 2.0 sport is pretty well specced, probably comparable to most 3.0 if not better (Msport seats, multi function Msport steering wheel, 18" wheels etc). Only thing likely to be missing is sat nav which is crap anyway, takes a year to put any addresses in and mine continually broke as screen kept playing up, better off with a Garmin.

5. Styling- depending on your budget you're maybe considering pre face lift 3.0 vs face lifted 2.0 (if your budget is around 7k). Face lifted has revised rear light clusters, revised headlamps (no ginger) and revised front bumper and fog lights. Personally I prefer the look of the face lift but also liked my aero 3.0.

6. Reliability- had my 3.0 for a year with no problems. 2.0 has a few known issues which mine has suffered from (exhaust manifolds are weak and expensive to replace but can be repaired. Looking at 1k for fitted replacement or £300 for a decent weld job. Mine is getting done this week!)

I've rambled on for too long but hope this helps. After all this advice I'd suggest that you just go out and look at some and drive them. Don't discount either until you try are my final words of advice

 

[indizee]

Firstly, thanks Geezah for posting up your pics of your seats. Im not into modding my cars, but that seat combo with the door cards is something I might look into. The Z4 seats are really comfy, which is a bit of a shame as one reason I sold my Z3 was because it gave me terrible backache.


Nice to see , Horseofwar, that Im not only the indecisive one on here. I went through from MG TF to Z3 to Jag XKR in 8 months. I kept the XKR for over three years as it was an awesome car, and was a great GT cruiser when I took it to Le Mans. But it finally went to downgrade engine size to my current Z4 2.5. And one big factor was the XKR was a Coupe and I wanted to get back to some top down fun.( i tested about 15 cars to make sure it didnt give me that backache again)

I was looking for a 3.0 auto, but was put off by so many bad kept, unloved examples that i went to view, everything from 2.0 to 3.0 was tested, eventually finding my immaculate car at a dealers. For me it was the car's condition more wthan the spec that did it for me. ( I had the XKR completely resprayed due to stone chips) Having had a 2.8 straight six in my Z3 I knew what I wanted and the 2.5 suits me fine. Although it is manual, I would of prefered auto for those of us who prefer to enjoy a ride as opposed to thrashing about on the edge.
On the econmy side, Im getting 33.2mpg pretty much all the time, as I live out in the country I dont do much town driving.

So for me the 2.5 is a bit of a compromise, it suits my needs and style of driving. I take it to work now and then but mainly sits in the workshop under a cover. If it's performance and thrills I want, I just get out on the Ducati............ :evil:

 

[DrNick]

Blimey this is a debate!

to the OP - my first zed was a 2.0 MSport (only changed it a few weeks ago... you could have had it!)

Great car, plenty of smiles/miles - can thoroughly recommend it!

Infact - it is still for sale!

http://www.thamesvalleycars.co.uk/bmw-z4-sport-roadster-in-berkshire-for-sale-3588713

 

[coaldust]

yeah ignore me i know nothing, been warned by WLH for this post, for what? giving my opnion on the 2.0 ?,

my post was to help the OP get the right z, so ive been warned i geuss in respect of upsetting 2.0 owners, either that or this WLH dood has it in for me.

Well i speak my mind, that aint a bad thing, i stick by what i said, want an underpowered z without the six soundtrack? go and purchase one, but getting the 3.0 will be better because you save yourself having to sell the 2.0 and finding another.

prolly get another warning or ban for this post.

bah

 

[craig3.2]

Everyones entitled to their opinion....therefore remember the fact that everyone doesn't always want power in their car, just want the looks, so they buy a 2.0 and are perfectly happy .

 

[Oakandacorns]

I throw in my tuppence worth.

Slating the 2.0i is a bit grim in my opinion. Many of us drive Z4s for different reasons. Not everyone is a power freak or wants additional grunt and fuel consumption of the 3.0i. And for those maybe upgrading from a Mazda MX5 or MG(T)F etc the 2.0i power plant in the Z4 is more than enough for some open top motoring fun.

Or, for those who mainly drive in town/city, the 3.0i might get you to 30mph a little quicker, but its not really much use in built up areas.

The 2.0i isn't a pointless engine. If that's the argument you might as well add that the 3.0i is pointless given that the S54 3.2 in the M has a lot more power....

Oh, and on the Applecross Forum meet in 2012, Malcolm managed 50mpg in his 2.0i, and did the weekend on 1 tank of fuel. I took me nearly 2 tanks of fuel. Put some of the difference down to driving, but you see my point.

Edit: and if anyone wants to know how quick a 2.0i is, just ask Woots. His 2.0i put a few 3.0i and Ms to shame a few years ago. Seriously

There's enough engine snobbery on the forum as it is, so lets not start bashing the 2.0i again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You made some fab points Adamski