Z4 2.5si 2007 or 3.0se 2004?

M

mooney

Member
Hi,
I am a newbie just about to buy a Z4.
Have had a Z3 3.0 previously which we loved, but recently sold and bought a TT instead.
The TT just doesn't compare, and we are really missing the convertible roof.

Have found two cars I like. Both are the same price.

One is a 2004 Z4 3.0 se with 66k miles, and a good spec list.

The other is a 2007 Z4 2.5si with 79k miles, and also has a good spec list.

The 2.5si is more on insurance (but not by much)

Would there be a good reason to pick one over the other?

I like them both.
 
Does the 2.5 Si have M-Seats and M-wheel ?

Considering the price of clear headlights i might be tempted to buy the 2.5si
 
ZermattV said:
Does the 2.5 Si have M-Seats and M-wheel ?

Considering the price of clear headlights i might be tempted to buy the 2.5si
Click to expand...

Both cars had M sport seats and sports steering wheel with multi function controls.

The 3.0 had electric memory seats, which the 2.5si didn't have.
 
Check if the 2.5si has had hydraulic vavle adjuster issues, and whether they've been rectified.

3.0i has more power if you're power hungry. If not, I'd be tempted by the 2.5si :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OK for me it comes down to age vs mileage ... one is 8 years old and done less than avge mileage and the other 5 with well above average miles for a Z4.

the 2007 car has spent 3 less winters out in the salt and grime .

If all other things are equal, alloys don't need a refurbish service history spotless I'd go for the 2007 2.5 Si.
 
I went for the 3.0i as I wanted the power rather than rag the 2.5 all the time.

Mine has done 52k and is in near mint condition though. I look after it and she still turns heads.

My advise would be to go for the 3 litre. :)
 
We have driven the 3.0 but wont be able to drive the 2.5si until tomorrow.

Have previously driven a 2.5 and it was a noticable difference to the 3.0.

Will there be much less of a difference between the 2.5si and the 3.0?
 
depends what the 2.5 you drove before was...

the facelift 2.5si isn't that far behind the 3.0 of the pre-face lift...
 
gannet said:
depends what the 2.5 you drive before was...

the facelift 2.5si isn't that far behind the 3.0 of the pre-face lift...
Click to expand...

The 2.5 we drove before was a 2005 prefacelift.

Was still nice, just not as nippy.

Will have to see how the 2.5si feels tomorrow
 
Think it will come down to the test drive. As a considered purchase, dont be too hasty.

Maybe test drive each one more than once.... :thumbsup:
 
To me, the condition, toys and mileage are the most important if you are weighing up 2.5si vs 3.0se.

In this situation, I'd go for the 2.5si...
 
I would go for the 2.5si , as gannet said it will not be far behind, not to mention the clear headlight bumpers updated interior/ dash knobs! :lol: etc.

2.5si Sport 2d Avg Mpg = 34mpg
6.3 secs
149 mph
214 bhp

3.0i SE 2d Avg Mpg = 31mpg
5.7 secs
155 mph
231 bhp

But due to demand the 3.0 may holds it value better in the future :? but who knows
 
As above 2.5si would prob be best bet, it's actually 218bhp so just 13 down on the old 3.0i (but less torque)

Only issue is the HVA's but I would take a punt as the other benefits out way this risk.

I had a 2.5si for 4 1/2 years and old sold for my ///M
 
srhutch said:
As above 2.5si would prob be best bet, it's actually 218bhp so just 13 down on the old 3.0i (but less torque)

Only issue is the HVA's but I would take a punt as the other benefits out way this risk.

I had a 2.5si for 4 1/2 years and old sold for my ///M
Click to expand...

I stand correct thats would you get it you use Parkers as an information source :lol:
 
From other threads, many feel the HVA issue is not a big deal, the main thing is to avoid short trips. One other plus of facelifts is the soft top motor is better sealed from water intrusion. While a few have still had problems, the rate is much lower.

To me, the facelift just looks, well, fresher. There's advantage in a newer car, even with higher miles. Parts deteriorate even without miles put on them. And if the miles are mostly motorway, they are almost meaningless compared to city miles.
 
bcworkz said:
From other threads, many feel the HVA issue is not a big deal, the main thing is to avoid short trips. One other plus of facelifts is the soft top motor is better sealed from water intrusion. While a few have still had problems, the rate is much lower.

To me, the facelift just looks, well, fresher. There's advantage in a newer car, even with higher miles. Parts deteriorate even without miles put on them. And if the miles are mostly motorway, they are almost meaningless compared to city miles.
Click to expand...

We will be doing a few short journeys.

Having thought about it for the afternoon, we are now thinking that we should extend the budget to be able to get a facelift 3.0si.

Would this have the same HVA problem?

Therefore should we avoid it and stick to the M54 engine in the 2004 3.0?
 
Honestly do not worry is the same "scare mongering" used for the reasons not to buy a Porsche ... ooo do not buy because of bla bla it affect a very small amount. Not running down anyone for saying it but I believe it should not be a major concern

If you budget goes up to a 3.0si do it! Its a fantastic engine and car with stack of performance a quite a jump in the bhp :thumbsup:, also it will hold its value better as its the more desirable engine. This of course is just IMO so I could be talking cobblers! :lol:
 
All N52 engines have a potential for the HVA 'problem'. For most, it's more an annoyance than a real problem. As long as you have longer trips mixed with short, you may not notice anything. The HVA noise is your car telling you to drive it more!

+1 for 3.0si worth going for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom