Z4 for everyday

The weight of the heavy 2lT in the vxt is what made it less nimble on track than the lighter 2.2 engine. Balance played a key part and I wasn't going up against stock vxt's either.

Same with the 4 pot z's too. The engine sits a little further back I believe compared to the 6's and that balance plays far bigger a part in handling than just the weight.

But... this is a daily he's after. As a daily there's far more important things than top end power. I would say the creature comfort and options would be on the top of my list over just having the more powerful engine. Hell, if that was the case he should just daily the M haha
 
DaveP said:
As someone also in the market for a Z4, I can't honestly see much reasoning in buying a lesser-engined car unless you're in the middle of nowhere or you don't want the performance.

As for the idea that the 4cyl cars are the better handlers, I'd be really sceptical about that. The weight difference between the 3.0 and 2.2 is the equivalent of a tank of petrol - and with the engine sat behind the front wheels, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference.
There's no getting away from the fact that the 2.0 and 2.2 are very slow cars. The average diesel repmobile would comfortably see either off in a drag race - but I suppose it is ultimately down to what excites the individual.
Click to expand...

Depends what you want out of the car. Traffic-light posturing or a sweet open top drive in a classically styled head turning (still) set of wheels. Slow is also relative - my usual drive is a 1.2 Yeti so 2.0 is fast enough by that measure!
 
Steve84N said:
It's not hard to use all the performance of a 3.0si, anyone who tells you a lesser engine is just as good is usually someone who has that lesser engine...
Click to expand...

Yep it's not hard to use all the performance of the 3.0si but I don't think folk are saying all engines are just as good but rather that it is not always needed . . . .

I can take you to a very entertaining road where using all the performance of the 3.0si will have you off the road but you could rev to the limiter with the 2.0 litre Steve (so what offers the most fun then?). . . . and I still reckon on the road the driver makes the difference - I've seen the evidence on many runs. See what cherrym says above and he's been out with our resident 'Nico' Chezsherman in his 2 litre - no one gets left behind. :thumbsup: :driving:

No doubt though that the 3.0si has an excellent engine which most drivers will enjoy and was the reason I moved from 2 - 3 litre - yep, a beautiful engine (I still agonized over changing Zeds as the 2.0 litre was so much fun!)

I'm now on an M and it's an entirely different experience - seems like I'm acting against my own point but I have moved to the M for lots of other reasons than just the engine.

louie12 said:
DaveP said:
As for the idea that the 4cyl cars are the better handlers, I'd be really sceptical about that. The weight difference between the 3.0 and 2.2 is the equivalent of a tank of petrol - and with the engine sat behind the front wheels, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference.
There's no getting away from the fact that the 2.0 and 2.2 are very slow cars. !
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Hmm, sorry I disagree and that's from direct experience - I can tell you that you can feel the difference on the back lanes that I use. It's been interesting to feel that difference between the 2.0i Sport then the 3.0si Sport and now the M. The difference in weight between the 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder engine is noticeable and then surprisingly, the difference between the N52 3.0si engine and the heavier M is also noticeable . . . .

Not trying to be clever here or imply I'm some kind of mega sensitive driver - nope :lol: - it's just important that the OP gets a full and balanced response and the OP is after a daily - the M is already there for the serious fun element.
 
Can't comment on the handling of a 4-cyl Z4 over the 6-cyl as I've only had the 6-cyl model (or indeed, any BMW I've owned).

However, I agree with paulgs, I've got the 3.0Si and although its not a rocketship in 2016, its still a fast car and probably too fast for most roads to actually fully extend; but when you can the noise and speed is fun, although you get used to straight line speed rather quickly. I had a 1000kg JDM MX5 with 130 bhp and honestly, it was more than enough except for overtaking; it could do it but the Z4 can do it much more easily, which = more fun more of the time. That said, on a twisty enough road, it was surprising what it could stay with. You really don't need a lot of power to have fun on the road, I'd be happy enough driving a GT86 which everyone says are slow, but in reality nearly as fast as my old remapped CTR which always felt like a quick car to me.

One other thing, I wouldn't necessarily rule out the slower models as it'll make your M feel like more of a rocketship when you do drive it!
 
Power gives you options, you can go slow or fast. Slow is always slow.

Some prick in an e36 sped up when I overtook him tonight so I dropped another cog and dropped him anyway. He probably had a 2.0.

A straight six is the only naturally balanced engine configuration and it's as nice to waft in as it is to extend it. Can't say the same for a four pot.
 
Best car is the one the OP is happy with for his daily needs. we can all measure our dicks, thats easy. 2.0 / 2.2 / 2.5 / 3.0 all of the options are good looking cars and can give lots of fun for a daily drive.

If my daily commute was on the Mway 50 miles a day I'd go 3.0 6 speed auto. If it was 10 miles on country roads I'd not pass up on the other options as they're just as fun.

Saying a 2.0 Z is slow is just silly. Slow would be a 1.0 B reg fiesta. lets put things into perspective lol side by side to the M he owns the 3.0's are slow too
 
RLFILMSCO said:
Best car is the one the OP is happy with for his daily needs. we can all measure our dicks, thats easy. 2.0 / 2.2 / 2.5 / 3.0 all of the options are good looking cars and can give lots of fun for a daily drive.

If my daily commute was on the Mway 50 miles a day I'd go 3.0 6 speed auto. If it was 10 miles on country roads I'd not pass up on the other options as they're just as fun.

Saying a 2.0 Z is slow is just silly. Slow would be a 1.0 B reg fiesta. lets put things into perspective lol side by side to the M he owns the 3.0's are slow too
Click to expand...

On the forum runs the 3.0 is always hot on the Ms tails.
 
Yeah the 2.0 zed is really slow and no fun.....yawn, just ask anyone who has been on a forum run with one. No regrets with my choice. As ever Paulgs speaks from a wealth of experience.
 
To be honest, in straight-line terms they are slow cars. A 320d would be hot on the tails of most 4cyl Z4s.
For me having the extra performance is not about using it all the time, or needing to wring the neck of a car to exploit it. Having that little bit of punch up your sleeve to drag you out of a tight corner in the wrong gear or to make an overtake possible/safer makes all the difference in the experience for me.

However, I do recognise that not all of the appeal of the Z4 is found at 10/10ths. Open-top motoring with a moderately sporty chassis can be great fun, even with relatively little absolute power.
Having said that, with such little disparity in pricing, it seems a bit churlish to ignore the 3.0.
 
Geezah said:
Yeah the 2.0 zed is really slow and no fun.....yawn, just ask anyone who has been on a forum run with one. No regrets with my choice. As ever Paulgs speaks from a wealth of experience.
Click to expand...

150bhp and quite heavy cars. 1300kg or thereabouts? Certainly not dog slow, but slow-ish.
 
my 2.5i is the slowest car I've owned in many years but by no means slow... the most fun though :thumbsup: I've had tuned Diesels that pull like no other on the motorway but zero fun and numb as hell. The only car I've owned more fun ( and by a mile ) is the VX220 which was a joy to own but not realistic for me now as I need a little more comfort. The sound of my Z is what makes me smile, it handles well and is a great compromise. If given the choice, same spec, same price etc I would indeed choose the 3.0 for no other reason that I can but I'd definitely not rule out the others as being a tad crap. There's so many for sale now though so its definitely a buyers market.

I don't think the 3.0 compares to the M though, even if its on its tail on runs, I've drove a couple and they just feel so much different to drive. I personally put more emphasis on how it feels to drive than if I can out drag someone. There's a few really nicely done 2.0's on here that look the absolute business.
 
surely just get the 3.0 mate, why wouldn't you. if you're worried about MPG, get a diesel daily. its not that hard a decision I don't think.
 
ben g said:
Geezah said:
Yeah the 2.0 zed is really slow and no fun.....yawn, just ask anyone who has been on a forum run with one. No regrets with my choice. As ever Paulgs speaks from a wealth of experience.
Click to expand...

150bhp and quite heavy cars. 1300kg or thereabouts? Certainly not dog slow, but slow-ish.
Click to expand...

Hang on! There's something wrong here! :o On your reckoning there is NO WAY that Geezah's 2 litre has 150bhp :lol: . . . . I've driven with him and he's obviously driving something with far, far more power . . . . . 'slow-ish' :rofl:

I reckon Chezsherman is also driving something more than 150bhp - there's no way he should be able to make the pace he does up Hartside. . . . . he should be 'slow-ish' too - it's a mystery :? :rofl:

And there's others (many ex motorcyclists by the way - which might explain some of the discrepancy) who manage to keep up on the road in their slow-ish 2.0litres. :tumbleweed:

We need to get onto BMW 'cos that 150bhp just can't be right :( - it just doesn't make sense now does it . . . . . . :headbang:

'And some fell on stoney ground' :cry:
 
150bhp isn't much when my Fiesta ST is 1080kg's and 200bhp standard. The game has moved on and we're getting swallowed up by hatchbacks and diesels nowadays.
 
I had the dilemma of buy a small engine or buy a 3.0. I drove a 3l and immediately bought a 3l. Honestly, its a decision you will not regret.

Paid 4750 for mine and its the best thing i have ever bought. Imagine that feeling of waking up every morning for work and looking forward to getting in the car!
 
mr wilks said:
2.2i is 150bhp & that is never going to feel as quick as a 3.0Se , the gearing may be cajoling you into thinking its swift :wink: over 8secs 0-60 is the stats , you must have a special one to hit 7 :oops:
Click to expand...
2.2 is 170 bhp and 7.7 to 60 by book. Speed is all relative- I've never struggled on a forum run, may have just used the gears a bit more than others :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom