Another question between 2.8 and 3.0

Zee3PO · Post by **Zee3PO** » Tue 15 May, 2007 11:15

Hi all,

Just doing som research at the moment and I'm looking at a 2.8 or a 3.0, just got a few questions.

1) When did the engine liner problems get solved in the 2.8?
2) Has there ever been such problems in the 3.0?
3) Is the 3.0 really nearly a second faster to 60 with an extra 30 bhp?
4) Was anything made standard on the 3.0 that I may miss on the 2.8?
5) What 2.8s are double vanos? (I know to check inlet manifold, but as a rule, what years are DV?)
6) Is there any problems with either type of vanos on these engines? I know its came up on the Z3Ms
7) What are they like on sh*tty rainy cold days in winter?

Truth is I'm more inclined (financially) to the 2.8, but the 3.0 just seems a lot better - is it?

///M_aniac · Post by **///M_aniac** » Tue 15 May, 2007 11:26

Hi,

1) Nikasil probs fixed by early 1998, March. Steel liners then introduced on M52 block

2) No such problems on 3.0

3) 3.0 is defo faster, don't know about a second though. Depends on how savage you are with the clutch.

4) Would need to look into this. 3.0s did come in Sport guise whereas 2.8s didn't. With sport you got LSD, Snazzy wheels, mesh grill under number plate, sports seats yadda yadda yadda, other forum members will develop upon this for you, I'm sure.

5) All face-lifted 2.8s are DV but it appears that some pre-face lift cars were DV too. So if the car was built in 1999 and was either pre-or post face-lift it may possibly be DV. (Other members will correct me if I'm wrong) Need to bring chassis no to $tealership to check

6) No problems with DV on these engines that anything other than poor maintenance has caused.

7) Fine, as long as you have good tyres on the car and the heater on.

2.8s and 3.0s are ultimate cruising Z3s. either would make you very happy. Me personally would be swung towards the 2.8 as its pedals are heavier and it doesn't use engine oil.

JontyP · Post by **JontyP** » Tue 15 May, 2007 11:32

Not sure about all the Q's but here goes.

1) When did the engine liner problems get solved in the 2.8?
Apparently never a problem on the zeds because it had been sorted before the zed was available with a 2.8 (copyright Mike Fishwick)

2) Has there ever been such problems in the 3.0?
I would say definately not given the above.

3) Is the 3.0 really nearly a second faster to 60 with an extra 30 bhp?
Probably but I've had a 2.8 (but not a 3) and loved it. In the real world I'm not sure it really matters.
4) Was anything made standard on the 3.0 that I may miss on the 2.8?
Dunno
5) What 2.8s are double vanos? (I know to check inlet manifold, but as a rule, what years are DV?)
IIRC the M52TU engine is the DV type. My 2.8 was and it was a Julty'99 car. I think it came in towards the tail end of '98.
6) Is there any problems with either type of vanos on these engines? I know its came up on the Z3Ms
Not heard of any Vanos issues with these
7) What are they like on sh*tty rainy cold days in winter?
Absolutely fine. I drove my ///M all through winter and it really isn't a problem. Great heaters and even better if you have heated seats

Cheers
Jonty

JontyP · Post by **JontyP** » Tue 15 May, 2007 11:32

Flippin 'eck Conor, you're fast on the old keyboard.

Jonty

Zee3PO · Post by **Zee3PO** » Tue 15 May, 2007 12:02

cheers guys, a great set of answers.

Definately tilting towards the 2.8, so did they not have LSD at all then?

///M_aniac · Post by **///M_aniac** » Tue 15 May, 2007 12:04

I don't think so unless it was specified by purchaser as additional equipment.

splash · Post by **splash** » Tue 15 May, 2007 13:14

I'm sure 98/99 2.8 does have a LSD it is listed as part of the specification on Parkers guide and a couple of other auto websites.

RobBruce · Post by **RobBruce** » Tue 15 May, 2007 13:17

Zee3PO wrote:cheers guys, a great set of answers.

Definately tilting towards the 2.8, so did they not have LSD at all then?

I though all 2.8s had the LSD, I know the 1.9s didn't. Someone with more expert knowledge might have the definative answer.

Rob

Post by **Robert T** » Tue 15 May, 2007 13:28

RobBruce wrote:I though all 2.8s had the LSD, I know the 1.9s didn't. Someone with more expert knowledge might have the definative answer.

I'm pretty sure this is the case. The 1.9s have an electronic LSD in the form of ASC+T - I don't think it's quite the same somehow though!

Cheers R.

c_w · Post by **c_w** » Tue 15 May, 2007 13:34

The 2.8s should have an LSD plus traction control, the 4 cylinders just have the traction control.

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Tue 15 May, 2007 13:38

7) What are they like on sh*tty rainy cold days in winter?
Massively powerful heater, but take it real easy in the wet. They are prone to sudden rear end breakaway if you turn in too tight or touch the brakes or throttle on bends. Also more prone to aquaplaning due to the wide tyres.

komis · Post by **komis** » Tue 15 May, 2007 14:55

4) Would need to look into this. 3.0s did come in Sport guise whereas 2.8s didn't. With sport you got LSD, Snazzy wheels, mesh grill under number plate, sports seats yadda yadda yadda, other forum members will develop upon this for you, I'm sure.

My 2.8 facelift has LSD, M-suspension and sports seats from factory. Does not have "mesh" type grille though although I'm sure the bumper was changed or repainted at some point because my options printout says I should have headlight washers and I don't.

Does the printout of all options on the service book say "Sport" for any of the Sport models?