What to go for Z4, Vx220 Boxster or S2000??
Discussion
Herman Toothrot said:
heebeegeetee said:
Herman Toothrot said:
heebeegeetee said:
A supercharged MX5 will be easily obtainable for under £10k and will be a better car than all those mentioned, but it doesn't have the image. 
No it wouldn't be.But they can be found - a mate has just bought a W reg 3.2S which has had a shunt but been properly repaired, 20k miles and looks almost identical to the current models. Change the headlamps and back window and add a private plate and you'd need to be a Boxster fan to spot the difference.
But the Mazda wouldn't have an adverse history, be easier to live with, more room in cabin, useable boot, handles easily as good as the Boxster, absolutely no issues such as RMS or engine failure and be very capable from a-b even on standard suspension.
The other cars, the Z4 and 350Z will have image and 6 cylinders (both major positives) but in all other areas will be more expensive and inferior to the Mazda. The S2000 will be group 20 insurance and no torque compared to an FI (forced induction) MX5.
Imo.
Purely from an aesthetics viewpoint, I find the Z4 the nicest to look at. Never been a big fan of the other cars, looks-wise.
Driving-wise, had a Z4 2.5 for a week and it reminded me that motoring can be fun (my everyday car at the time was a CLK 55 AMG - Mercedes made me miss my motoring mojo.
). Had a test drive of an S2000. It was interesting but lacked "something" that the Z4 had. I don't know what, though, as on paper the S2000 is quicker and the engine is supposedly cleverer (the Z4 2.5 has a 4 cylinder engine, too). I just preferred the Z4.
Driving-wise, had a Z4 2.5 for a week and it reminded me that motoring can be fun (my everyday car at the time was a CLK 55 AMG - Mercedes made me miss my motoring mojo.
). Had a test drive of an S2000. It was interesting but lacked "something" that the Z4 had. I don't know what, though, as on paper the S2000 is quicker and the engine is supposedly cleverer (the Z4 2.5 has a 4 cylinder engine, too). I just preferred the Z4.Edited by ShadownINja on Saturday 1st August 14:52
Diderot said:
Z4 for me had absolutely diabolically horrible steering (that stupid electric setup which has no feel, and is crazily vague).
I think it is lacking something, but it does come alive more as you get up over 7/10ths and feels ok... a key problem imho, is that with the standard seats you hang off the steering wheel, and so the feel is corrupted. With the sports seats you can hang onto it more softly when pushing on and feel more.Then the RFT tyres also make it feel vaguer than it is because it moves around without any associated feel for that movement. Going to normal tyres and when it does move it has an associated feel now (it moves less)
From what I remember the old Peugeot 306 GTi6 was well regarded for it's steering feel by almost all journos etc over the years, and imho, it felt the same as any 306 with the sporty suspension, and imho, driving them fairly often next to my Z4, I don't think they offer anything 'more'
Turn on the "sport" button and it weights up nicely too.
But I do agree, it does miss something, but you would have to be some kind of steering feel fanatic to miss it when it does almost everything else really nicely.
Dave
Crusoe said:
If you are looking at z4 the 3lr is the engine to go for, the added sound ducting makes it sound a lot more like a sports car and there is noticeable difference in the way it pulls to the red line compared to the 2.5 which is similar lower down but runs out of puff a bit around 5500 rpm. Difference in running costs is just the mpg which is only 2 or 3mpg difference. 2.5 on 17in wheels and the non-sport suspension would me a more comfortable cruiser though if you were doing lots of miles though even the sport 3lr is better than the other options mentioned for motorway work. When looking a s2000 make sure you check when they last had a full alignment done, that they have the same rubber all round in the original spec tyres and that they have had the adjustment bolts greased as lots have had problems with seized bushes which is a costly fix. On vx220 there are lots of recalls to make sure they have completed, should have had brake hoses and expansion tank replaced and most earlier ones had alloy wheels replaced too, and lots used in winter have had bubbles forming in the fibreglass which causes paint problems. Lots of extra info on the specific forums for each car with things to watch for and buying advice, a second hand car from a forum member might also be a good place to start looking as they should have an easy to trace history and have the known issues fixed:
http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?s=0fb4f212afb...
http://www.vx220.org.uk/
http://www.z4-forum.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=11
Hi there how did the s2000 and your 3.0lr z4 compare in performance, mpg, luggage space and running costs?http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?s=0fb4f212afb...
http://www.vx220.org.uk/
http://www.z4-forum.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=11
Year in the s2000 for me doing 20k miles a year was two services compared with one in the bmw, honda a bit less each time and labour and parts cheaper, but worked out about the same overall as they are needed more often. S2000 average overall 26mpg with mixed mostly a and b road driving and some motorway, 3lr z4 average for the same conditions 31mpg. One set of tyres on the z4 and two sets of rears and one set of fronts on the s2000, wider rubber on the 18s I have on the BM cost quite a bit more though. I would say overall the 3lr Z4 works out a bit cheaper to run for me though mostly for some of the fuel difference. Boot space is very similar but slightly bigger and more door pockets and internal bins in the bmw. Performance on track in the dry the honda might edge it but neither would pull out a gap on an average road, overtaking slower traffic easier in the z with more torque, overtaking faster cars the hondas long gearing sometimes worked in its favour if you down shifted twice. With the electronic help in the z you can take more liberties and push harder in the wet or unknown roads where it would probably be hard to keep up in the honda. Had wheels replaced on both under warranty though the z also had a wiper assembly and front bushes, honda needed a rear brake unseized and front pads.
Daniel1 said:
and about 170bhp from memory?
6-pot with 192bhp in the early-2000's, rising to easily over 200 when the upped the 3.0 from 231 to 261bhp...not sure if the hi-power 2.5 ever made it into the last Z4 though...Very nice engines (2.5 and 3.0) - deceptively smooth (i.e. they don't feel as quick as they are).
Thankx Crusoe thats really helpful, the Z4 does sound like the better buy for me out of the two, as its going to be slightly more fuel economical and insurance works out around £300 cheaper plus it has the torque which i think i would like. Its just finding a nice 3.olr in my budget not alot come up, but lots of 2.5lr do, but would prefere 3.0l! Alot will depend on what comes up when I decide to buy as I have got to sell my mazda before I can buy the next car and I dont like the thought of not having a car for a while so could depend on which one of the three cars I like comes up first we shall see. Crusoe what made you sell your vx and s2k?
Hot1 said:
Crusoe what made you sell your vx and s2k?
Change my car quite regularly because of the miles I rack up so usually about a year or so though I might keep this one a bit longer as it seems to have gone up in value even with the miles I have added, just luck buying at the right time. Those two were the only cars I have crashed. The vx suffered suspension failure after a hub nut rusted and sheared through giving 20deg of negative camber at the rear and sending the car spinning down the road in a straight line bouncing off the walls either side so not really my fault, great car but not endurance tested like main stream cars so has lots of fairly major things you need to stay on top of. Recalls for brakes that would go solid as the vacuum hoses perish, or wheels that brake off at the spokes because a batch was not heat treated etc. and many others that have DIY fixes you should do based on the very helpful specialists and forums. I would have another but it would be kept in a garage as a weekend toy and I would strip it down and rebuild most of it so I could trust it, replacing the bolts with the lotus version that were a recall for them but Vauxhall never wanted to know on the vx and there aren’t that many made so proving there are issues is hard work. I can speak form experience that the s2000 is not the best rear wheel drive for someone coming from hot hatches, driver training is probably a good thing but in the end a high speed blow out put an end to the Honda. After having driven it through the worst of a Scottish winter as my daily driver it was a tyre that finally caught me ot though it was the car that has given me the most brown trouser moments. I would have another though but probably a 2007 or later car with the final revisions and stability control as it might have helped save the blow out from spinning and would be a lot less stressful when the rear steps out doing 50 on the rain on a dual carriageway when other cars are racing past you.Johnny Rocco said:
ShadownINja said:
Had a test drive of an S2000. It was interesting but lacked "something" that the Z4 had.
At the end of the day the performance stats for the S2000 stack up favourably against the Z4 3.0 Coupe, and the Boxster S, and are better than the lesser boxster and Z4s, despite having a third less CC and much less torque, thats because torque on its own is meaningless, but somehow it has become everbodys word for power. its as if they think they are showing a greater level of understanding by using the word torque all the time.
Yes you have to rev an S2000, and to some peoples dismay actualu use the excellent gear box, but so what, thats what it was designed to do, if you couldnt hear the noise the engine was making you wouldnt know any different, and you would still reach 60 at pretty much the same point the 3.0 Z4 and Boxster S would be.
to me it shows the boxster and and z4 as having pretty average engines, a 3rd more displacement, and cost a lot more to start with, but they barely produce any more power or performance.
Interesting to see the below 60-100 stats are pretty much the same for all 3 cars, this is supposedly this where you hear people drone on about torque being imortant, but the 2 cars with about 50% more torque are not realy any quicker
S2000
Year Introduced 1999
Kerb Weight 1286kg
Engine Type Straight 4
Valves 16 valve
Cylinders 4 cylinder
Aspiration Naturally Aspirated
Displacement 1997cc
Fuel Petrol
Drive RWD
Transmission 6 speed Manual
Engine Location Front Mounted
BHP 237
Torque (lbs/ft) 153
BHP/Ton 187
0-60mph 5.8s
0-100mph 14.3s
60-100mph 8.5s
1/4 Mile 14.3s
Terminal Speed 100mph
Kilometre N/A
Top Speed (mph) 149
Nürburgring N/A
Z4 3.0 Coupe
Year Introduced 2006
Kerb Weight 1385kg
Engine Type Straight 6
Valves 32 valve
Cylinders 6 cylinder
Aspiration Naturally Aspirated
Displacement 2996cc
Fuel Petrol
Drive RWD
Transmission 6 speed Manual
Engine Location Front Mounted
BHP 265 @ 6600rpm
Torque (lbs/ft) 232 @ 2750rpm
BHP/Ton 194
0-60mph 5.7s
0-100mph 14.0s
60-100mph 8.3s
1/4 Mile 13.92s
Terminal Speed 100mph
Kilometre 25.2s
Top Speed (mph) 155
Nürburgring N/A
Boxster S
Year Introduced 1999
Kerb Weight 1320kg
Engine Type Flat 6
Valves 24 valve
Cylinders 6 cylinder
Aspiration Naturally Aspirated
Displacement 3179cc
Fuel Petrol
Drive RWD
Transmission 6 speed Manual
Engine Location Mid Mounted
BHP 260 @ 6200rpm
Torque (lbs/ft) 228 @ 4700rpm
BHP/Ton 200
0-60mph 5.5s
0-100mph 13.8s
60-100mph 8.3s
1/4 Mile 13.85s
Terminal Speed 100mph
Kilometre 25.6s
Top Speed (mph) 164
Nürburgring N/A
Having had both I agree as above that the performance is similar, the difference is that high revs = high fuel consumption and high engine wear, you can sometimes be caught in the wrong gear and even if you do down shift to get right in the vtec zone you may need to then up shift during the overtake. Not many would down shift to second to get past a car doing around the B road speed limit, most use 3rd or 4th as an overtaking gear.
I like both and for driving for pleasure I would take the s2000 (though the vx220 or elise would be even better), for driving back from the office where I rack up most of the miles the z4 or boxter would make a more relaxing and efficient option.
I like both and for driving for pleasure I would take the s2000 (though the vx220 or elise would be even better), for driving back from the office where I rack up most of the miles the z4 or boxter would make a more relaxing and efficient option.
Edited by Crusoe on Monday 3rd August 18:34
I am looking towards a 350z in approx 4-6 months time when the 370's have saturated and you can pick up a cracking 350z for 10k.
Are they fairly decent cars to live with? My commute each day is 3 miles each way, hardly much. But this may increase in the near future. I am not too concerned with fuel consumption, more concerned with how short trips would affect the car and engine. Or am I being worried over nothing?
The ideal choice was a E46 M3 but the insurance costs coupled with maintenance make it so much more expensive than the 350! although I am also leaning towards the 5.7 Monaro....
Are they fairly decent cars to live with? My commute each day is 3 miles each way, hardly much. But this may increase in the near future. I am not too concerned with fuel consumption, more concerned with how short trips would affect the car and engine. Or am I being worried over nothing?
The ideal choice was a E46 M3 but the insurance costs coupled with maintenance make it so much more expensive than the 350! although I am also leaning towards the 5.7 Monaro....
Berger 3rd said:
Johnny Rocco said:
ShadownINja said:
Had a test drive of an S2000. It was interesting but lacked "something" that the Z4 had.
At the end of the day the performance stats for the S2000 stack up favourably against the Z4 3.0 Coupe, and the Boxster S, and are better than the lesser boxster and Z4s, despite having a third less CC and much less torque, thats because torque on its own is meaningless, but somehow it has become everbodys word for power. its as if they think they are showing a greater level of understanding by using the word torque all the time.
Yes you have to rev an S2000, and to some peoples dismay actualu use the excellent gear box, but so what, thats what it was designed to do, if you couldnt hear the noise the engine was making you wouldnt know any different, and you would still reach 60 at pretty much the same point the 3.0 Z4 and Boxster S would be.
to me it shows the boxster and and z4 as having pretty average engines, a 3rd more displacement, and cost a lot more to start with, but they barely produce any more power or performance.
Interesting to see the below 60-100 stats are pretty much the same for all 3 cars, this is supposedly this where you hear people drone on about torque being imortant, but the 2 cars with about 50% more torque are not realy any quicker
Torque is important in the real world. At 30 mph the Z4 could put his foot down and be long gone before the s2000 has managed to munch his synchro into 2nd into his vtec'yoh zone
it also makes the car so much easier to drive quickly (but not fast) without stressing people out with the invariable increase in engine speed and noise to keep up.
I'm pretty sure it evens out for any given % of the rev range for Z4 or S2000.
I just prefer the noise of a slower bigger engine, with more cylinders, for my money.
Also, economy of bigger slower engines seems better than little revvier ones, and then there is that discrete factor. A more frantic engine still does the work it needs to, but it makes itself know. The Z4/Boxster on the other hand can do work fairly subtly because of the lower revs and noise... handy these days, when dumbasses wave at you for doing a nice blip down to 1st at about 10mph, while the diesel zooms past at 40mph and no one bats an eye lid.
All swings and roundabouts of course, but that is why we all enjoy and buy different things.
Only way to know is to test drive if you are not sure what you want
Dave
I just prefer the noise of a slower bigger engine, with more cylinders, for my money.
Also, economy of bigger slower engines seems better than little revvier ones, and then there is that discrete factor. A more frantic engine still does the work it needs to, but it makes itself know. The Z4/Boxster on the other hand can do work fairly subtly because of the lower revs and noise... handy these days, when dumbasses wave at you for doing a nice blip down to 1st at about 10mph, while the diesel zooms past at 40mph and no one bats an eye lid.
All swings and roundabouts of course, but that is why we all enjoy and buy different things.
Only way to know is to test drive if you are not sure what you want
Dave
Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 3rd August 20:27
Daniel1 said:
Torque is important in the real world. At 30 mph the Z4 could put his foot down and be long gone before the s2000 has managed to munch his synchro into 2nd into his vtec'yoh zone
it also makes the car so much easier to drive quickly (but not fast) without stressing people out with the invariable increase in engine speed and noise to keep up.
:yawn:it also makes the car so much easier to drive quickly (but not fast) without stressing people out with the invariable increase in engine speed and noise to keep up.
There wouldn't be much difference, tbh.
And a turbo-4 of similar power (e.g. Focus ST) would in turn be a little quicker than the Z4 in short-term acceleration. But no more involving, and with a softer throttle-response.
In give-and-take driving, on a M-way or A-road, then I concur wholeheartedly that torque is king - it makes life so much easier. But I'd suggest that you don't buy a sports-car because of it's M-way prowess...and to my mind a high-revving n/a engine (I include the BM I-6 in that category, of course) is exactly what you want.
...so the BMW 3.0 I agree is probably the engine of choice in this particular bunch, but to say it holds a real advantage over the S2000 is really overstating the case...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff