Which Engine?

S

Sycamore

Member
Hi, I don't currently have a Zed (shun me), although I've been looking into potentially buying one.

Over the past few weeks I've settled on getting a 2.0, a 2,2, a 2.5, and a 3.0 roadster. :driving:

I'm 22, with a commute of ~9 miles either way through urban roads - No nice roads I'm afraid, although that's what weekends are for, no? :evil:

Annual mileage would be ~12k. Being 22, insurance is still kind of an issue, and being young I'm naturally not a rich powerful company director, so fuel costs also need to be taken into account. I'd preferably be in a straight six, but are the 2.5's really that bad on fuel?

I can stomach an increase in fuel costs as I currently lease a '15 Fiesta Black Edition (it's awful), so buying a Zed will mean I can put what I currently pay on the lease towards fuel.

Are the extra smiles gained from a 2.5 worth it in lieu of the extra running costs? It may also just be my imagination, but prices seem very similar near to me, although the bigger engine cars tend to be better spec'd.

Many thanks + love reading the forum
 
If your thinking of a 2.5 you minght as well go up to the 3.0 for mpg reasons. Heres a good link for you. http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/bmw/z4/roadster-2003/
 
It seems to me that the real world MPG across the engine range is very similar (except the M).
My 10 mile commute is between 30-33 mpg, motorway runs at 80 [unspecified units] get 36 mpg hitting 40 mpg at more sedate speeds. I pretty much get the same mileage as my 2007 1.4 fiesta.

If you want to keep running costs down get handy with a spanner, this will save you more than the fuel!

I can't imagine there will be much difference in insurance between 2.5 and 3.0.
 
I got the 2.5 and find fuel economy is pretty awesome. I was actually planning on getting a 3.0 but mine came up cheap and when I test drove it I was more than happy with the performance so bought it there and then
 
My Fiesta is supposedly capable of 63MPG. On my commute I struggle to get above 38, so a drop down to 30mpg isn't too scary.

I'd probably be more inclined to go for the 3.0 simply because "I can".
My car history is an 80bhp Smart Roadster Coupe (fantastic little car, imo), and the Fiesta Black. The 3.0, to me, would feel like a "proper" car.

Plus my Dad wants one :driving: :evil:
 
Agree with Scooba_Steve - unless you are looking at the ///M, you can't really differentiate between the 6 cyl models based on fuel economy. And you do want a 6 cyl model. :thumbsup:

What's your budget? Either of the "si"-badged engines (2.5 and 3.0) that come in the facelifted Z4 roadster would be an good choice. Fuel economy is decent for both - you should see ~30mpg on a short commute and 35mpg+ when cruising.

This, for example, is a cracking example.
 
I would go for the 3.0 - the differences in mpg & running cost are negligible (not sure how the insurance would vary given your age though - you should get some quotes for comparison).
If you can stretch to a 3.0si 'facelift' model (2006 onwards) then go for it - that will give you the N52 straight 6 engine with 265 horses. On short commutes I'm getting 28 mpg but on a long motorway journey I can squeeze 39 mpg out of it.
 
I bought my 3.0i when I was 22. They're surprisingly great on fuel. Cruising down the m6 at 85 this weekend I was getting 37mpg. Can't knock that!
 
Don't be fooled into thinking a 9 mile urban commute will give you 30mpg because it won't unless the roads are all clear.

You will probably get mid to high 20s.

I have a 26 mile commute and it returns around 30-31mpg with me driving sedately, 11mins of A roads, followed by 20mins of motorway and 15-20mins of urban traffic. I do give or take 80 on the motorway and the A roads are about as economical as it gets short of drafting a lorry.

Straight six is definitely advised though as it's a much nicer sound, much smoother (I6 is the only engine configuration that's naturally balanced) and the extra power and torque is most welcome.
 
My old 2.5si used to return around 28mpg on my commute, the ///M around 23mpg so there isnt all that much in it.

Insurance also 20% cheaper on the ///M so worth getting some quotes on different models as you might be surprised.
 
srhutch said:
My old 2.5si used to return around 28mpg on my commute, the ///M around 23mpg so there isnt all that much in it.

Insurance also 20% cheaper on the ///M so worth getting some quotes on different models as you might be surprised.
Click to expand...

20% cheaper :o Surely with no other variables it cost more to insure an ///M than a 2.5si ?
 
Marlon said:
srhutch said:
My old 2.5si used to return around 28mpg on my commute, the ///M around 23mpg so there isnt all that much in it.

Insurance also 20% cheaper on the ///M so worth getting some quotes on different models as you might be surprised.
Click to expand...

20% cheaper :o Surely with no other variables it cost more to insure an ///M than a 2.5si ?
Click to expand...

Many of us found a instant drop, mine went from £500 to £400.

4 years on and I'm paying £204 per year :D
 
srhutch said:
Marlon said:
srhutch said:
My old 2.5si used to return around 28mpg on my commute, the ///M around 23mpg so there isnt all that much in it.

Insurance also 20% cheaper on the ///M so worth getting some quotes on different models as you might be surprised.
Click to expand...

20% cheaper :o Surely with no other variables it cost more to insure an ///M than a 2.5si ?
Click to expand...

Many of us found a instant drop, mine went from £500 to £400.

4 years on and I'm paying £204 per year :D
Click to expand...

Well I guess you're not going to argue, but the ///M is faster by a mile & more expensive & a higher insurance group - makes you wonder what formulas the insurance companies use to calculate premiums?
 
Hi There,

I have a 2.5i SE 2006 facelift model. 177bhp if I am not mistaken. My commute is about 4-5 miles in each direction. Here is my experience with fuel economy:

Whenever I pay for fuel I feel guilty and start driving extremely carefully and barely make 30mpg in urban-ish rural roads. Near 35 if I filled on a motorway station.

Then After couple of miles I get an empty piece of road and remember why I bought this car and say "sod it!" Mpg quickly goes down the toilet... 24.7mpg seems to be the number the car likes to show most on the dash. This is with accelerations involving gear shifts at the Rev limit.

I tried hard to keep it sane and drive at 30mpg style, but what's the point? If you buy such a car buy, the one you like and enjoy it. If I knew about the little difference in mpg between mine and 3.0, I would have considered the 3.0 when searching. But now that I have 2.5i, I am really happy with that too. But I am coming from a Honda Civic 1.8.... Anything would have been a meaningful improvement for me anyway. I may look for Z4m coupes in 1-2 years after getting used to this one!
 
My pre facelift 2.5 i SE 6 cylinder returns around 35 mpg on a run which was better than I imagined when I got it a month ago. It has bags of power and torque and I couldnt imagine why I would want more. It does have 192 bhp which is more than the 177 from the facelift model so not sure why you would want a newer version when it has less bhp. To me 177bhp from a 2.5 6 cylinder is pretty measly and I can imagine after a while you would hanger for more performance.
By my reckoning if you look at the engine lineup you probably wouldnt want the base 2 litre as you would always wonder what the bigger engine would be like whereas the 3 litre might be a bit much for our overcrowded roads and hit you insurance wise. Thats why I went middle of the road with 2.5 192 bhp.
I was also told that you can tweak the 2.5 to get near 3.0 performance.
 
Marlon said:
srhutch said:
Marlon said:
20% cheaper :o Surely with no other variables it cost more to insure an ///M than a 2.5si ?
Click to expand...

Many of us found a instant drop, mine went from £500 to £400.

4 years on and I'm paying £204 per year :D
Click to expand...

Well I guess you're not going to argue, but the ///M is faster by a mile & more expensive & a higher insurance group - makes you wonder what formulas the insurance companies use to calculate premiums?
Click to expand...

Over time insurers create a risk profile based on actual experience which is used to amend the initial pricing model (which will use insurance group as a basis), but there are a great many rating factors, including value, and not all of them result in difference in premium that one might expect.

Mike6 said:
My pre facelift 2.5 i SE 6 cylinder returns around 35 mpg on a run which was better than I imagined when I got it a month ago. It has bags of power and torque and I couldnt imagine why I would want more. It does have 192 bhp which is more than the 177 from the facelift model so not sure why you would want a newer version when it has less bhp. To me 177bhp from a 2.5 6 cylinder is pretty measly and I can imagine after a while you would hanger for more performance.
By my reckoning if you look at the engine lineup you probably wouldnt want the base 2 litre as you would always wonder what the bigger engine would be like whereas the 3 litre might be a bit much for our overcrowded roads and hit you insurance wise. Thats why I went middle of the road with 2.5 192 bhp.
I was also told that you can tweak the 2.5 to get near 3.0 performance.
Click to expand...

Don't forget there are two facelift engine specs for each the 2.5. The 177 bhp 2.5i effectively replaces the 2.2i, the 2.5Si is 215 bhp and replaces the pre-facelift 2.5i. The 2.5i can be converted into the 2.5Si in theory by changing the intake manifold and associated map but it still won't be a 3.0 by a long shot.

On topic however, I had a 2.5i (pre facelift) at 21 and bought my 3.0Si at 22 - insurance cost difference was £7 per year. Definitely get the 3.0 if you can, whether facelift or not. As for fuel economy, I commute via small country lanes (so accelerating to 50-60mph then slowing to stationary for junctions in villages) at an average of ~25-30 mph and get 22 mpg, though that will increase in the winter (got around 26 mpg last winter) as lead comes out from my foot.

Actually driven carefully, then 28-30 mpg is achievable but where's the fun in that?
 
Looking at the short term point of view then the 2.5 may well be a wise choice, but in the long term you are always going to yearn for more POWER! Hence the best financial route would be, to buy a 3.0 in the first place and save losing all that cash on depreciation of a 2.5.

In reality, check the costs of running a 2.5 over a year, versus a 3.0. I,d say that it may be only a few hundred pounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom