Z3 2.0 MPG

[Major Fallout]

Sitting at the bar, and a friend of mine says he is getting 20.something Mpg.
That's over 140 miles of normal driving, light foot.

That can't be right? Anybody know the usual?
I used to do 34ish in my 2.5 z4.

[rumple]

if its the m52 6 pot, maybe, they were always the worst of the 6's, same economy or worse than the 2.8, smooth engine well built, but never one for economy

[Vulgar LS2]

I get 300 miles to a tank which is quite small 40L i think. mines the 2.8 as well.

[DanielJames]

I thought the Z3s were a 1.9 or 2.2?

[icepop]

Nope, the 2.0lt is a 6 pot, it's nice and smooth, and completely underpowered in the fat Z3. Drove a friends car, when I owned a caterham 7, and I thought the hand brake was on, it was aweful, so sluggish. Cabin build quality was appalling too. Economy was, as noted quite bad. Built in America, for ladies in large sunglasses to think they look good in.

[Mastodon2]

I've read reports on this site before that there is little difference in MPG between the 2.0L and 2.8L.

[Ilikebeaver]

Mastodon2 said:

I've read reports on this site before that there is little difference in MPG between the 2.0L and 2.8L.

This + 1

Should get mid 20's from the M52.

The newer 6 cyl's (2.2 & 3.0)fitted to the last of the Z3's would do low 30's. (mid with sensible long distance driving)