What do you think of your 20i's
- Thread starter Dave1971
- Start date
Well it's all down to personal choice and what you can afford. Sadly I can't afford to run a 35i or an M as a daily driver and run my bikes as well and I'd rather shove wasps up me arse than get rid of my bikes;-). For me I don't care how much performance a car has because of the dynamics of a bike it will always be a more involving process riding a bike IMHO.
I understand that's a personal thing but that does leave me with a compromise of having to run a more sensible daily driver. I could have a Ford or a Vauxhall like every bugger else in the car park but if i'm going to be in it every day I'd rather not. It might not be exactly what I would want but let's face it will still go faster and handle better than most other things in the car park
.
I understand that's a personal thing but that does leave me with a compromise of having to run a more sensible daily driver. I could have a Ford or a Vauxhall like every bugger else in the car park but if i'm going to be in it every day I'd rather not. It might not be exactly what I would want but let's face it will still go faster and handle better than most other things in the car park
.Tom I think you are being overly harsh. There is nothing wrong with the 20i performance - by most standards it is still a rapid car yet it has the classy looks and top-down motoring. Not everyone who owns a Roadster is bothered about M levels of performance. It might not be for you or I but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
:lol:I can see this from all sides. The e89 was re-targetted by BMW and it worked. People buy it based on looks and mpg. Look at the 18i for gods sake 
I'm of the opinion that unless its quick to match the looks, I may have well bought a family hatchback. So 35 is what I went for (iS wasn't around until a year later so I bought the fastest car they did).
I love my speed, but also, the post about 'you can't use it' is quite true too. Nice to have, for the moments you can use it. Personally, from a resale perspective, I'd rather they didn't do the lower powered engines, e.g.. in the US where no one wants the low power versions. Mainly because I think it damages the reputation of the model.
I'm of the opinion that unless its quick to match the looks, I may have well bought a family hatchback. So 35 is what I went for (iS wasn't around until a year later so I bought the fastest car they did).
I love my speed, but also, the post about 'you can't use it' is quite true too. Nice to have, for the moments you can use it. Personally, from a resale perspective, I'd rather they didn't do the lower powered engines, e.g.. in the US where no one wants the low power versions. Mainly because I think it damages the reputation of the model.
A 2.0 z4 is a lot prettier than a 320 CC
To be totally honest the 2.0 is a more logical choice in Britain than a 35iS or an M ... I've never been very logical when it comes to cars. My only concern is how alive the car would feel considering the chassis was designed with more power in mind. It's why I liked MX-5s as the power and chassis were well matched as it was never designed to carry 200 bhp +.
To be totally honest the 2.0 is a more logical choice in Britain than a 35iS or an M ... I've never been very logical when it comes to cars. My only concern is how alive the car would feel considering the chassis was designed with more power in mind. It's why I liked MX-5s as the power and chassis were well matched as it was never designed to carry 200 bhp +.
The sad truth is that without the 18i's and 20i's in the range there wouldn't be 35i/35is/M's or whatever.
In the 20i we are talking about a car capable of 0-60 in 6.9 and 0-100 in under 20. That's hardly slow and perfectly acceptable for a Roadster.
Based on the logic of some people on here, a Nissan GTR owner might say "I don't know why BMW make a Z4 when the M/35iS is so slow!"
In the 20i we are talking about a car capable of 0-60 in 6.9 and 0-100 in under 20. That's hardly slow and perfectly acceptable for a Roadster.
Based on the logic of some people on here, a Nissan GTR owner might say "I don't know why BMW make a Z4 when the M/35iS is so slow!"
There's no public road in this country where we can legally drive over 70mph. So unless you buy a sports car for use on the track as well as on public roads the other factors like mpg, styling, insurance etc matter more.
Why do you 'need' any more power than the 2.0 can give for what most of us use our cars for on a day to day basis?
I say 'need' because obviously wants and needs are two different things. If you want a bigger engine then have one but knocking the 2.0 for not being a real sports car is a tad harsh.
Why do you 'need' any more power than the 2.0 can give for what most of us use our cars for on a day to day basis?
I say 'need' because obviously wants and needs are two different things. If you want a bigger engine then have one but knocking the 2.0 for not being a real sports car is a tad harsh.
I don't necessarily agree with Tom's opinion, power alone does not a sports car make and as such there can be no denying that the MX5 is a sports car. However, I have never really cared for labelling them either way as it is just opinions and snobbery.
The e89 is a lovely car to own, be it a 2.0 or 35iS, you will be happy, yes it is slightly heavier than the e85 but it is a better car by miles, less skittish and its only the electric steering that has my criticism, that and the standard stereo.
As for engines, my preference would be the 28i, economy and emissions are the same, resale values will be better as there are fewer of them and performance is better, however if it was a case of 2.0 or nothing the it would be the 2.0.
As for the 35i, it is half a second quicker to 60, but is considerably more expensive to run, the only real advantages over the 28i are the two extra cylinders and that DCT
Good luck
The e89 is a lovely car to own, be it a 2.0 or 35iS, you will be happy, yes it is slightly heavier than the e85 but it is a better car by miles, less skittish and its only the electric steering that has my criticism, that and the standard stereo.
As for engines, my preference would be the 28i, economy and emissions are the same, resale values will be better as there are fewer of them and performance is better, however if it was a case of 2.0 or nothing the it would be the 2.0.
As for the 35i, it is half a second quicker to 60, but is considerably more expensive to run, the only real advantages over the 28i are the two extra cylinders and that DCT
Good luck
Mine is great, fuel consumption good. I bought it because of the looks and the fact that its a convertible. No good when you are trying to keep up with the "boy racers" on the annual lakes meet tho. 
Carol M said:
As I say, I can see both sides. Personally speaking, I don't need the power I have, but I wanted it. While I don't routinely speed, I do love the feeling of the acceleration. Its why I bought the e85 and then the e89, both the fastest engines I could get at the time (both early models before the M or iS came out). Having a car that looks like a sports car and then being overtaken by a family diesel is to me embarrassing, therefore the looks and speed have to go together for me.
Hill Start Assist also helps on the 35..
(sorry, the :evil: came out in me)Each to their own, and thats fine, but we all have different needs and wants... mine is power (and the sound!).
I've driven the 20i and 28i... The 20i wasn't for me, it was slow compared to the 35i of course. The 28i was much quicker, but just the same in sound etc. as the 20i.. the sound generator makes up for it a bit, but you know the sound is fake. The 35i (now I've also disabled the 'be quiet' flap in the right exhaust) is v loud and I love it! I probably spend at least £10 of my £55 tank just making noise
I probably spend at least £10 of my £55 tank just making noise 
Im not being harsh or snobby, its just my opinion.
Its the pedigree of the vehicle, it is a 2 seater it should have a large engine. I wasn't saying the E89 is a bad car at all, in fact I didn't even mention it, only the engine. They are really good looking and a great place to be. But the whole model strategy seems flawed compared to all the other BMW models, there isn't really anything to aspire too, neither any real pedigree apart from the 35. probably why there has been no mods done to them by owners because thats all there is to play with the engine choice, otherwise the cars are exactly the same, therefore inspiration is lacking.
Most E85/86 owners make their cars look like Ms because that is where the pedigree is. Just a shame they didn't make a E89 M, it would have made the car more desirable.
Its just something I would want in a car, knowing you have the power, im not everyone but MPG and comfort isn't what I would buy a sports car for, but that is my opinion and mine is a weekend car. The 2.0 has about the same characteristics as my Mini Cooper S. Its quick but not fast, the Cooper S is a 1.6 too and you can chuck it around which is what makes it fun to drive.
That would pi$$ me off if Id just spent 34k on a 2.0l and a Cooper S can toy with it and be more fun to drive.
It goes hand in hand. But then again thats where they went wrong with it.
BTW you can hardly compare an MX5 to an E89 either.
Also I concur the 35 sounds fantastic, socketr's car sounded very beasty at the cumbrian meet.
Its the pedigree of the vehicle, it is a 2 seater it should have a large engine. I wasn't saying the E89 is a bad car at all, in fact I didn't even mention it, only the engine. They are really good looking and a great place to be. But the whole model strategy seems flawed compared to all the other BMW models, there isn't really anything to aspire too, neither any real pedigree apart from the 35. probably why there has been no mods done to them by owners because thats all there is to play with the engine choice, otherwise the cars are exactly the same, therefore inspiration is lacking.
Most E85/86 owners make their cars look like Ms because that is where the pedigree is. Just a shame they didn't make a E89 M, it would have made the car more desirable.
Its just something I would want in a car, knowing you have the power, im not everyone but MPG and comfort isn't what I would buy a sports car for, but that is my opinion and mine is a weekend car. The 2.0 has about the same characteristics as my Mini Cooper S. Its quick but not fast, the Cooper S is a 1.6 too and you can chuck it around which is what makes it fun to drive.
That would pi$$ me off if Id just spent 34k on a 2.0l and a Cooper S can toy with it and be more fun to drive.
It goes hand in hand. But then again thats where they went wrong with it.
BTW you can hardly compare an MX5 to an E89 either.
Also I concur the 35 sounds fantastic, socketr's car sounded very beasty at the cumbrian meet.