Discussion
Have these hit the dip yet ?
Looking whats for sale in the south west and i can pick up a 2.5 about or just under 100k for between 2-2500 , there's even a 3litre but it's a auto and 112k.
Looking at the various cars advisories and doesn't seem to be anything major :
anti roll bar joint play in lower linkage
play in steering rack inner joint
offside front service brake fluctuating
defective front exhaust mounting
Now i know the handling isn't comparable to a boxster but it seems a hell of a lot of car for 2k.
Looking whats for sale in the south west and i can pick up a 2.5 about or just under 100k for between 2-2500 , there's even a 3litre but it's a auto and 112k.
Looking at the various cars advisories and doesn't seem to be anything major :
anti roll bar joint play in lower linkage
play in steering rack inner joint
offside front service brake fluctuating
defective front exhaust mounting
Now i know the handling isn't comparable to a boxster but it seems a hell of a lot of car for 2k.
The 2.5 seems to be very good value and isn't hugely down on power but lacks a 6th gear (E85)
Values seem all over the place and I'm considering an E85 or an SLK 350 - whose values are even more erratic but apparently more problematic.
On balance, the E89 2.5 with 201 bhp looks the best value and isn't much more than a good E85.
Values seem all over the place and I'm considering an E85 or an SLK 350 - whose values are even more erratic but apparently more problematic.
On balance, the E89 2.5 with 201 bhp looks the best value and isn't much more than a good E85.
cologne2792 said:
an SLK 350 - whose values are even more erratic but apparently more problematic.
.
I wouldn't..
Front wings rot where they meet the bumper - no aftermarket panels and Mercedes have no stock.
Rear subframe rot although MB do replace them FOC. The subframe mounts on the body can get very grim.
The V6 is okay apart from the one terminal problem - the teeth wear off the balance shaft sprockets, a major engine out repair. Swirl flaps as well requiring a new manifold. You can't 'de-flap' them.
The 7 speed auto is very average but manuals are not as grim as some say.
Metal folding roof, electrical dramas, rusty gearbox sumps...............
No. The Z4 is a much better option. They are also much more of a sports car.
Touring442 said:
cologne2792 said:
an SLK 350 - whose values are even more erratic but apparently more problematic.
.
I wouldn't..
Front wings rot where they meet the bumper - no aftermarket panels and Mercedes have no stock.
Rear subframe rot although MB do replace them FOC. The subframe mounts on the body can get very grim.
The V6 is okay apart from the one terminal problem - the teeth wear off the balance shaft sprockets, a major engine out repair. Swirl flaps as well requiring a new manifold. You can't 'de-flap' them.
The 7 speed auto is very average but manuals are not as grim as some say.
Metal folding roof, electrical dramas, rusty gearbox sumps...............
No. The Z4 is a much better option. They are also much more of a sports car.
What I can't understand is that in 2004 Mercedes galvanized the SLK and yet it still develops rust?
The CLK on the other hand seems vastly better.
I'd really like an E89 Z4 with the folding metal roof but it's more than I want to spend.
Galvanising only slows rust though.
It's basically bad design. On the SLK the wing bolts to the bumper with steel reinforcing strips. The arch liner has a handy cut out right on the wing/bumper seam where rain water, mud etc can find its way in and nestle on top of the seam and rot the wing flange away. By the time you see the rust bubbles coming through, it's too late.
Some BMW's and Mercs have alloy rear subframes such as the E60, W211 etc. The W212 went back to a cheaper steel one and like the SLK, they rot from the inside out.
'The best or nothing'....my arse!
On both the Z4 and R171 SLK you avoid the 2.0 versions like the plague.
It's basically bad design. On the SLK the wing bolts to the bumper with steel reinforcing strips. The arch liner has a handy cut out right on the wing/bumper seam where rain water, mud etc can find its way in and nestle on top of the seam and rot the wing flange away. By the time you see the rust bubbles coming through, it's too late.
Some BMW's and Mercs have alloy rear subframes such as the E60, W211 etc. The W212 went back to a cheaper steel one and like the SLK, they rot from the inside out.
'The best or nothing'....my arse!
On both the Z4 and R171 SLK you avoid the 2.0 versions like the plague.
Touring442 said:
Galvanising only slows rust though.
It's basically bad design. On the SLK the wing bolts to the bumper with steel reinforcing strips. The arch liner has a handy cut out right on the wing/bumper seam where rain water, mud etc can find its way in and nestle on top of the seam and rot the wing flange away. By the time you see the rust bubbles coming through, it's too late.
Some BMW's and Mercs have alloy rear subframes such as the E60, W211 etc. The W212 went back to a cheaper steel one and like the SLK, they rot from the inside out.
'The best or nothing'....my arse!
On both the Z4 and R171 SLK you avoid the 2.0 versions like the plague.
I think they settled on the nothing.It's basically bad design. On the SLK the wing bolts to the bumper with steel reinforcing strips. The arch liner has a handy cut out right on the wing/bumper seam where rain water, mud etc can find its way in and nestle on top of the seam and rot the wing flange away. By the time you see the rust bubbles coming through, it's too late.
Some BMW's and Mercs have alloy rear subframes such as the E60, W211 etc. The W212 went back to a cheaper steel one and like the SLK, they rot from the inside out.
'The best or nothing'....my arse!
On both the Z4 and R171 SLK you avoid the 2.0 versions like the plague.
A 3.0 E85 seems to be quicker than the equivalent SLK 280, uses less fuel and (2006 on) is considerably cheaper to tax. They don't seem to be so rust prone either.
The SLK seems to be rather more comfortable though.
The CLK's I see seem to be in rather better nick. Are they built with more attention than the SLK?
Some early Z4s do seem to suffer from rusty wings, but as they are all bolted on changing them isn't too difficult.
And there are some getting broken for parts now values are so low so replacements come up for sale from time to time.
The only other frequent rust issue is with the rear brakes pipes where they come out of a plastic cover in front of the passenger side rear wheel. Road dirt gets stuck in the end of the cover so when it gets wet the pipes corrode.
And there are some getting broken for parts now values are so low so replacements come up for sale from time to time.
The only other frequent rust issue is with the rear brakes pipes where they come out of a plastic cover in front of the passenger side rear wheel. Road dirt gets stuck in the end of the cover so when it gets wet the pipes corrode.
As per the shed thread, if it's an M54 engine, considered reliable (can use a bit of oil).
I think early Z4s also suffered with the 'sticky' EPAS. But otherwise, mechanically they are not especially problematic.
If the roof is in decent nick, defo worth a look for £1700 imo.
(Does it have heated seats - honestly one of the best features with a convertible (well any car actually))?
I think early Z4s also suffered with the 'sticky' EPAS. But otherwise, mechanically they are not especially problematic.
If the roof is in decent nick, defo worth a look for £1700 imo.
(Does it have heated seats - honestly one of the best features with a convertible (well any car actually))?
egor110 said:
If both z4's are same price would you go for the 2.2 but with the m sport seats heated seats and air con or a standard se but 2.5 engine ?
I think I’d go for the 2.2 tbf there isn’t much difference in power from the 2.2 and early 2.5 ( 170bhp v 189bhp) and the later 2.5 had the same power as the 2.2 ( 170bhp ) The 2.2 is supposedly a free revving engine and certainly they are no slouch and can be rowed along quite briskly
Ultimately on any car approaching 19 years old condition matters the most but I’d rather have the seats and toasters .. the standard seats are pretty poor imo
egor110 said:
There's a z4 local to me for £1700.
2.5 , short mot central locking doesn't work but for pretty much shed money that's a lot of car.
Central locking is probably the GM5 module - can be repaired for like £50.2.5 , short mot central locking doesn't work but for pretty much shed money that's a lot of car.
egor110 said:
If both z4's are same price would you go for the 2.2 but with the m sport seats heated seats and air con or a standard se but 2.5 engine ?
I'd go for the 3.0...I have only owned the Z4M but friend has owned 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 versions.
His preferred car was the 2.0 on non sport suspension. As I understand it the 6 cylinder versions he owned had sport suspension which was very harsh.
He couldn't believe the Z4M was so compliant with its Non run flats and 18" wheels, I still think it's quite a hard ride despite a slight improvement from Eibach pro springs.
His preferred car was the 2.0 on non sport suspension. As I understand it the 6 cylinder versions he owned had sport suspension which was very harsh.
He couldn't believe the Z4M was so compliant with its Non run flats and 18" wheels, I still think it's quite a hard ride despite a slight improvement from Eibach pro springs.
a340driver said:
I have only owned the Z4M but friend has owned 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 versions.
His preferred car was the 2.0 on non sport suspension. As I understand it the 6 cylinder versions he owned had sport suspension which was very harsh.
He couldn't believe the Z4M was so compliant with its Non run flats and 18" wheels, I still think it's quite a hard ride despite a slight improvement from Eibach pro springs.
All the pre LCI cars which were 6cyl were on sport suspension and run flats His preferred car was the 2.0 on non sport suspension. As I understand it the 6 cylinder versions he owned had sport suspension which was very harsh.
He couldn't believe the Z4M was so compliant with its Non run flats and 18" wheels, I still think it's quite a hard ride despite a slight improvement from Eibach pro springs.
The 2.0 was introduced the same time as your Z4M and available as were all the LCI 6 cyl cars with non sport suspension
Granted removing the run flats on all Zed’s transforms the ride though
Jakg said:
egor110 said:
There's a z4 local to me for £1700.
2.5 , short mot central locking doesn't work but for pretty much shed money that's a lot of car.
Central locking is probably the GM5 module - can be repaired for like £50.2.5 , short mot central locking doesn't work but for pretty much shed money that's a lot of car.
egor110 said:
If both z4's are same price would you go for the 2.2 but with the m sport seats heated seats and air con or a standard se but 2.5 engine ?
I'd go for the 3.0...I am tempted on having a punt on the 1700 one with the broken door lock and short mot , see if i can get it for nearer 1500.
egor110 said:
There is a 3.0 down in cornwall for 2500 but it's auto not manual and standard leather seats
There's one in Suffolk as well (not that it's any nearer!)https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/60938165...
Earthdweller said:
Jakg said:
I'd go for the 3.0...
For £1700 ? You’ll be lucky and he’s looking at a choice of 2.2 or 2.5
egor110 said:
Looking whats for sale in the south west and i can pick up a 2.5 about or just under 100k for between 2-2500 , there's even a 3litre but it's a auto and 112k.
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff