Buying Z3: 2.2 Sport or 2.8?

500e · Post by **500e** » Fri 27 Jan, 2012 15:29

Hi All,

Looking for a Z3 again after selling my 63k mile 328i Sport (E36).

Have heard good things about the 2.2 sport, but my sister had the 2.8 and that was awesome.

Is there much difference between the 2.2 sport (2001?) and 2.8 (circa 1998) ?

What about MPG?

Thanks,
Bill

billz · Post by **billz** » Fri 27 Jan, 2012 17:05

We have the 3.0 and that returns around 28 mpg and around 32 on long runs taking it steady. It is also supposed to return a better mpg than any of the other models. I would presume a 2.8 could be better on the mpg than a 2.2 soley down to the fact you dont need to rev it as much. But if you just potter around then i dont think you will find any real difference.
bill

500e · Post by **500e** » Fri 27 Jan, 2012 17:15

Hi Billz thanks for the quick response.

Are the engines the same?

My old 328 presumably uses the M52 block as the Z3 2.8.

Does the Z3 2.2 have an uprated vanos? Its a later engine and seems visually different.

Any more input would be highly appreciated.

Thanks,
Bill

pedro20001 · Post by **pedro20001** » Fri 27 Jan, 2012 18:27

hi, i have a 2001 2.2 titanium edition which is virtually sport spec ( m seats, lsd, 17" staggered wheels etc) and its my daily drive. it averages 31 mpg and thats with a bit of mixed driving. i would imagine the 2.8 is even better due to less revving but the 2.2 is no slouch. feel free to ask any questions

pedro20001 · Post by **pedro20001** » Fri 27 Jan, 2012 18:28

sorry, forgot to mention 2.2 has dual vanos ( both inlet and exhaust)

billz · Post by **billz** » Fri 27 Jan, 2012 19:25

Hi Bill
The engine is the M54 in the 2.2 the same as mine.
bill

500e · Post by **500e** » Fri 27 Jan, 2012 19:57

Interesting thanks all for the input.

I would love a 3.0L but wouldn't be able to handle the extra running costs.

I would still like to get some insight from those who have driven both the 2.8 and 2.2 Sport!

Thanks,
Bill

Badman gee · Post by **Badman gee** » Fri 27 Jan, 2012 20:06

Running costs are not bad if it's a casual use car.

If its a daily drive, then it can cost a lot to run.

I have a 3.2 for casual use, not too expensive.

If it was a daily drive it would cost a lot to run.

Plus I'm at the age where insurance is cheap!

Mark

billz · Post by **billz** » Fri 27 Jan, 2012 20:57

The 3.0 will cost no more than any of the others to run apart from the insurance and now you will be able to get that on classic car. My wife insures ours with me as named driver for £420 and i think it will be cheaper on classic car when it comes up for renewal in May. Wife puts £20 a week in going to work and back around 80 miles a week.
bill

Zed Carer · Post by **Zed Carer** » Fri 27 Jan, 2012 21:03

With the 2.8 there is a choice of 3 different models:

Pre Sept 98: original wide body (same as the ///M) with the single Vanos M52.

Oct 98 to Mar 99: original wide body (same as the ///M) with the twin Vanos M52TU.

Post Apr 99: facelifted wide body with the twin Vanos M52TU.

The 2.2 are all facelifted wide body.

Mike Fishwick · Post by **Mike Fishwick** » Sat 28 Jan, 2012 09:49

The 'Sport' package is basically M-Tech suspension, which will be wearing out by now, and the Sports seats do not work on many people, depending on their heigfht and build. The normal seats are fine anyway.

The 2.8 has a lot more grunt than the 2.2 - whihc is particularly noticeable when climbing long hills, or when fully loaded, aqnd can be very economical to run, depending on where and how you drive.

However, the 2.8s are all getting older, so it sepeds a lot on the condition of whatever cars you look at, their history, and - most important;y, how it has been treated.

simonbud100 · Post by **simonbud100** » Sat 28 Jan, 2012 12:52

Having had a 2.0 and a 3.0 I would say that the difference in running costs are negligable, the biggest being an increased insurance premium of about £50. Fuel costs are almost identical, servicing the same.

When you add in depreciation, I would suggest that the 3.0 and 2.2 models being the "newest" will hold their values slightly better than the 2.8 or 2.0 thereby making them cheaper to run long term.

500e · Post by **500e** » Sat 28 Jan, 2012 14:46

Thank all for the responses, much appreciated.

I am only 22 so I will have considerable increase in insurance from a 2.2 to 3.0L!

I am however edging more towards the 2.8L, I called for a nice Z3 2.8 today with 41k miles, 1997 model, widebody.

It's advertised for £4.5K, whats a more realistic value?

2 previous owners but FSH.

Thanks,
Bill

simonbud100 · Post by **simonbud100** » Sat 28 Jan, 2012 17:28

£4.5k for a '97 2.8, even with low miles and a FSH that seems at least £1k overvalued. I paid less than £4.5k for my 2001 3.0 last summer!!!

Jamezee · Post by **Jamezee** » Sun 29 Jan, 2012 03:37

2.2 sounds great

500e · Post by **500e** » Sun 29 Jan, 2012 10:08

Cheers!

I'm thinking of putting in a cheeky offer of 3.5k, subject to viewing...

It's owned by an elderly couple who bought it with only 1,600 miles on the clock. Now 41k.

She said it's mint but I don't think it has sports or heated seats.

Is this an easy mod to do?

I may view today...

Cheers,
Bill

simonbud100 · Post by **simonbud100** » Sun 29 Jan, 2012 13:35

500e wrote:
I'm thinking of putting in a cheeky offer of 3.5k, subject to viewing...

I wouldnt say that £3.5k is cheeky, I would say that its realistic (or even generous). If the owner needs convincing of the value of the car then point them towards this forum.

Cheers

Simon

500e · Post by **500e** » Sun 29 Jan, 2012 14:26

Decided not to view.

Too early, i'd love a facelift 2.2 or even 3.0 if I can get it insured...