Z4MC vs Z4C 3.0 Si Sport - More than an engine?
Discussion
After looking at 3.0 Si Sports and having driven one (and ruled out a 350z in the meantime), I rang up the (PH sponsor) insurance company to check that there wasn't going to be a nasty shock when we buy one.
Its £150 more for the year over the 330ci, which is acceptable.
Problem is that when I first rang up I *cough* accidentally *cough* asked about an ///M.
Now for some reason I've always been screwed over for insurance - as an example I'm currently paying over 600 for my 2.0tdi 140 Exeo
- I'm 40 this month
So the question is, should we be considering an ///M, bearing in mind the extra insurance is a whole £30 a year more than the Sport
What I want to know is on the Z4, is it just an engine upgrade and a badge, or has it been given the full M workover, like the M3 that the engine was pinched out of?
And is it worth buying an ///MC bearing in mind we won't be doing track days and will be my OH's daily driver and our weekend/touring car?
I have previously been guilty of always choosing the next to top model of the range,Had Leon FR, Impreza Turbo not STi, Mondeo Si not v6, etc etc, but might be feeling a bit more adventurous this time.
How long can I expect consumables to last on each with normal/occasionally spirited driving?
Is there anything to look out for, that means especially big bills on common failures?
Sorry if this is a bit long winded. You may answer Get an M, or don't bother if you want, but I'd like to hear some experiences,especially if you've had both.
Its £150 more for the year over the 330ci, which is acceptable.
Problem is that when I first rang up I *cough* accidentally *cough* asked about an ///M.
Now for some reason I've always been screwed over for insurance - as an example I'm currently paying over 600 for my 2.0tdi 140 Exeo
- I'm 40 this monthSo the question is, should we be considering an ///M, bearing in mind the extra insurance is a whole £30 a year more than the Sport
What I want to know is on the Z4, is it just an engine upgrade and a badge, or has it been given the full M workover, like the M3 that the engine was pinched out of?
And is it worth buying an ///MC bearing in mind we won't be doing track days and will be my OH's daily driver and our weekend/touring car?
I have previously been guilty of always choosing the next to top model of the range,Had Leon FR, Impreza Turbo not STi, Mondeo Si not v6, etc etc, but might be feeling a bit more adventurous this time.
How long can I expect consumables to last on each with normal/occasionally spirited driving?
Is there anything to look out for, that means especially big bills on common failures?
Sorry if this is a bit long winded. You may answer Get an M, or don't bother if you want, but I'd like to hear some experiences,especially if you've had both.
It's not just insurance which rises in cost, that may not be an issue, if that's the case IMO it's well worth the upgrade.
If its a maybe, then 6 - 12 months down the line those costs will start to rub.
Btw I love the sound of both but didn't like the feel of the Si it just didn't have the grin factor.
If its a maybe, then 6 - 12 months down the line those costs will start to rub.
Btw I love the sound of both but didn't like the feel of the Si it just didn't have the grin factor.
Thanks for the comments. Despite physprof's answer appearing the least useful/most predictable on a bank holiday weekend late at night 
? , his profile has detailed the running costs over four years of ownership, confirming that running costs are not as bad as I feared.
So thanks for that
? , his profile has detailed the running costs over four years of ownership, confirming that running costs are not as bad as I feared.So thanks for that
Edited by talksthetalk on Monday 6th May 08:48
At risk of adding to yet another war of words on here about this very subject, as a man who has driven both cars significantly, here is my summary of the differences
Suspension – On a smooth road, very little difference, on a rough surface, night and day. This might be down to the run flat tyres on the 3.0, but where the 3.0 will be jumping over bumps the M will stay planted with just steering shake to tell you about the surface.
Brakes – The M is a little sharper maybe but not much. The only real difference links back to suspension, which the M is much more stable under braking over bumps.
Steering – The M steering is heavier but does without the 3.0 electric rack which occasionally gets a little confused about the amount of assistance needed, so goes heavy, light, heavy very occasionally.
Gearshift – The M gearshift is really quite poor when compared with the 3.0 (and thats no award winner).
The Diff – The rear is a little happier to plan on the M.
The engine – Now this is the bit which will upset most of the M luddites who cannot accept that anything without an M badge on it, is remotely comparable.
The truth is (and I don’t have the dyno charts in front of me), until very high in the rev range (something like 6K), the engines make about the same power, so they feel very similar to drive in terms of shove and tractability.
To unleash the extra 80 bhp of the M you need to be knocking on the door of the limiter which you can’t do for any noticeable amount of time unless your in 3rd gear or more, which puts you well into 3 figure speeds.
A group of friends and I regularly go touring across Europe and the only time the M has managed to disappear into the distance in 5 years and 12,000 euro trip miles is twice.
Once on a very quiet stretch of the route napoleon and the other time was on an autobahn in Germany (and even then they got caught in traffic after about half a mile).
In terms of real world considerations, the M will probably hold on to its value better but servicing costs are in a different league. A lot of that is driven by the need to re-shim the tappets on the 3.2 engine every inspection service. You can buy a shim kit for a couple of hundred notes and learn to do it yourself but I’m not sure what that would do to resale.
Both are good cars. Personally I would buy the best example of whichever one you can find. That's what I did.
Here's my blog/ summary over 4.5 years to go along with PhysProf's.
The only reason I didn't end up with a 3.0 was that I HATED the steering feel from the electric steering. Don't think I would have missed the extra 80bhp either as I know on a hoon even a 2.5 can keep up unless I really push it - but a lot of the time I'm in a gear higher from what I can hear of the car revs in front. But this does mean I can drive it at below 6000rpm and it performs like a 3.0, and only goes wild when I need/want it too.
Never had a problem with the brakes myself, and it's done 75k miles of motorway, Snowdonia/Black Mountain/Peak District/Eifel Region hoons and 200+ 'Ring laps in my hands. But that may be because I don't try to brake 'too late'.
Never had a problem getting it into gear like some have either, but I guess you've just got to be bold/direct with your changes and not expect it to want to be changed as if you were in a shopping trolley.
If the 3.0's suspension is worse than the M, then I'm even more glad I didn't by the 3.0 - as I think the Z4MC's suspension is the worst I've ever had on a car. It's floaty at high speed and crashy at low speeds - it's as if some engineer got the set-up 180º wrong.
I've been saving, so next year it'll be suspension. I'll see how that does and decide where to go from there. Maybe a remap/intake/limiter removal - but these don't seem to make much difference, so it's likely to be just for the noise.
The only reason I didn't end up with a 3.0 was that I HATED the steering feel from the electric steering. Don't think I would have missed the extra 80bhp either as I know on a hoon even a 2.5 can keep up unless I really push it - but a lot of the time I'm in a gear higher from what I can hear of the car revs in front. But this does mean I can drive it at below 6000rpm and it performs like a 3.0, and only goes wild when I need/want it too.
Never had a problem with the brakes myself, and it's done 75k miles of motorway, Snowdonia/Black Mountain/Peak District/Eifel Region hoons and 200+ 'Ring laps in my hands. But that may be because I don't try to brake 'too late'.
Never had a problem getting it into gear like some have either, but I guess you've just got to be bold/direct with your changes and not expect it to want to be changed as if you were in a shopping trolley.
If the 3.0's suspension is worse than the M, then I'm even more glad I didn't by the 3.0 - as I think the Z4MC's suspension is the worst I've ever had on a car. It's floaty at high speed and crashy at low speeds - it's as if some engineer got the set-up 180º wrong.
I've been saving, so next year it'll be suspension. I'll see how that does and decide where to go from there. Maybe a remap/intake/limiter removal - but these don't seem to make much difference, so it's likely to be just for the noise.
Edited by mmm-five on Monday 6th May 11:53
talksthetalk said:
Thanks for the comments. Despite physprof's answer appearing the least useful/most predictable on a bank holiday weekend late at night ? , his profile has detailed the running costs over four years of ownership, confirming that running costs are not as bad as I feared.
So thanks for that
Glad to be of assistance! ? , his profile has detailed the running costs over four years of ownership, confirming that running costs are not as bad as I feared.So thanks for that
Edited by talksthetalk on Monday 6th May 08:48
Actually there was lots of chatter on z4forum on the Si versus M and really my un-inebriated bluff view remains. As others mentioned there is a substantive difference in mechanics and dynamics of both models. IIRC, one or two made the step up from Si to M and confirmed this.
The running costs (and differential) and not that huge when the M performance is factored in - provided you get the opportunity to use the engine to its capability rather than being trapped in urban crawl. If you only get to do traffic light point and squirt then it is a waste.
This is further evidenced by the machinations MC & MR owners go through to identify what to get next for similar performance/£ calculations. It's why I'm at 76k miles in mine now.... I'd wager Si owners see lots of alternatives
physprof said:
Glad to be of assistance!
Actually there was lots of chatter on z4forum on the Si versus M and really my un-inebriated bluff view remains. As others mentioned there is a substantive difference in mechanics and dynamics of both models. IIRC, one or two made the step up from Si to M and confirmed this.
The running costs (and differential) and not that huge when the M performance is factored in - provided you get the opportunity to use the engine to its capability rather than being trapped in urban crawl. If you only get to do traffic light point and squirt then it is a waste.
This is further evidenced by the machinations MC & MR owners go through to identify what to get next for similar performance/£ calculations. It's why I'm at 76k miles in mine now.... I'd wager Si owners see lots of alternatives
Having owned both, for about a year and 10k miles in each, I'd agree with all of this.Actually there was lots of chatter on z4forum on the Si versus M and really my un-inebriated bluff view remains. As others mentioned there is a substantive difference in mechanics and dynamics of both models. IIRC, one or two made the step up from Si to M and confirmed this.
The running costs (and differential) and not that huge when the M performance is factored in - provided you get the opportunity to use the engine to its capability rather than being trapped in urban crawl. If you only get to do traffic light point and squirt then it is a waste.
This is further evidenced by the machinations MC & MR owners go through to identify what to get next for similar performance/£ calculations. It's why I'm at 76k miles in mine now.... I'd wager Si owners see lots of alternatives
The M, as the sum of its parts, is the significantly better car.
When they were new and there was a £13k-ish difference in entry fee, there was a strong case to be made for the M not being worth the difference. Now that there's only about a £3-4k difference in values it's a no-brainer.
ETA: if I were in the market for one today, I'd buy neither. I'd be trying to find a nice e46 M3 CS instead. But that's probably not very helpful...
Edited by Gruber on Monday 6th May 14:48
Gruber said:
physprof said:
Glad to be of assistance!
Actually there was lots of chatter on z4forum on the Si versus M and really my un-inebriated bluff view remains. As others mentioned there is a substantive difference in mechanics and dynamics of both models. IIRC, one or two made the step up from Si to M and confirmed this.
The running costs (and differential) and not that huge when the M performance is factored in - provided you get the opportunity to use the engine to its capability rather than being trapped in urban crawl. If you only get to do traffic light point and squirt then it is a waste.
This is further evidenced by the machinations MC & MR owners go through to identify what to get next for similar performance/£ calculations. It's why I'm at 76k miles in mine now.... I'd wager Si owners see lots of alternatives
Having owned both, for about a year and 10k miles in each, I'd agree with all of this.Actually there was lots of chatter on z4forum on the Si versus M and really my un-inebriated bluff view remains. As others mentioned there is a substantive difference in mechanics and dynamics of both models. IIRC, one or two made the step up from Si to M and confirmed this.
The running costs (and differential) and not that huge when the M performance is factored in - provided you get the opportunity to use the engine to its capability rather than being trapped in urban crawl. If you only get to do traffic light point and squirt then it is a waste.
This is further evidenced by the machinations MC & MR owners go through to identify what to get next for similar performance/£ calculations. It's why I'm at 76k miles in mine now.... I'd wager Si owners see lots of alternatives
The M, as the sum of its parts, is the significantly better car.
When they were new and there was a £13k-ish difference in entry fee, there was a strong case to be made for the M not being worth the difference. Now that there's only about a £3-4k difference in values it's a no-brainer.
ETA: if I were in the market for one today, I'd buy neither. I'd be trying to find a nice e46 M3 CS instead. But that's probably not very helpful...
Edited by Gruber on Monday 6th May 14:48
I just done a road trip in mine and absolutely loved it
talksthetalk said:
Nah, after something less practical! And don't want smg.
Like the shape of the zc. Feels a bit more of an event.
You can get a CS with a manual box. They weren't all SMG (unlike the CSL where SMG was the only option).Like the shape of the zc. Feels a bit more of an event.
But you're right that the Z4MC looks and feels a bit more special. The rear haunches, in particular, are a thing of beauty.
I'd still take the CS though
talksthetalk said:
So the question is, should we be considering an ///M,
See here: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...Vroomer said:
talksthetalk said:
So the question is, should we be considering an ///M,
See here: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...physprof said:
Are you a beige man?
That entire thread in four wordsStill going to look at both.
IANADG so will be relying on the extra oomph that the 48kg gets me to make up any time I lost in the twisties due to the front heavy 50.2%/49.8 weight distribution... Or I could just put my wallet in the boot, rather than in my pocket.
An interesting fact nonetheless, every day is a schoolboy on here
An interesting fact nonetheless, every day is a schoolboy on here
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff