1.9 or 2.0

UK forum for general and technical discussion about the Z3 roadster
Post Reply
ajdizz
Joined: Sun 15 Apr, 2012 08:19
Posts: 3

  Z3 roadster 1.9

1.9 or 2.0

Post by ajdizz »

Hey everyone, been looking at this forum for a while and fallen in love with the idea of getting a Z3 (some of your cars are AMAZING!!). Anyway Im only 21, so looking at getting either a 1.9 m44 or a 2.0 in the next few weeks, but was wondering if there was a real difference in performance between the 140bhp and the 150bhp and if there was any difference between fuel consumption (anything will be faster than my 1.2 Punto :D ).

Any help will be appreciated!

Thanks in advance!
User avatar
Heath
Joined: Tue 20 Dec, 2011 23:35
Posts: 112

  Z3 roadster 2.0
Location: Burton on Trent

1.9 or 2.0

Post by Heath »

I have a 2.0 never drove the 1.9 but I dont think there is much in it, just the 1.9 is a 4 cylinder & the 2.0 is a six & a lot of people prefer the sound of the six cylinder engines


Heath on Tapatalk
Image
User avatar
BladeRunner919
Joined: Fri 17 Feb, 2012 20:18
Posts: 2225

  Z3 roadster 1.9

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by BladeRunner919 »

I'd drive both and see what you think. I personally prefer the 4 cylinder engines because I like the characteristics, despite the lower power, but there are plenty of people that would say the opposite. It's true that the 6 cylinder engines sound better.

For me, the fun is in the small-car, roof-down thing and the actual engine is somewhat secondary.
ajdizz
Joined: Sun 15 Apr, 2012 08:19
Posts: 3

  Z3 roadster 1.9

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by ajdizz »

Ok then, definitely gonna have to arrange some test drives, cheers for the help.
User avatar
Devon Z
Z Register member
Joined: Thu 20 Nov, 2003 21:39
Posts: 651

  Z3 roadster 2.0
Location: Brixham, Devon

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by Devon Z »

I've had both and there isnt much in it performance wise it's way they do it.
The narrow body 1.9 16v revs beautifully and feels nimble very MX-5ish :lol: mind you it was 13 years ago I had mine and only for 18 months till I got my 2.0 which in comparison feels bigger and delivers it's power in a slightly more relaxed way, plus the sound is lovely 8-)

Both are great cars, try both and see which one suits you and enjoy :)
99 2.0 Topaz Individual
///M_aniac
Z Register member
Joined: Sat 30 Jul, 2005 19:34
Posts: 4054

  M roadster S50
Location: Belfast

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by ///M_aniac »

I had a 2.0 and delighted in every minute of ownership--silky smooth 6 pot engine and a lovely exhaust note.

The 1.9s are more economical for the same sort of performance.

I'd have another 2.0 in a heartbeat, but just drive both and see which one you like best.

Good luck with the search. 8-)
BMW Z3, the only way to build a true roadster

Image - The most powerful letter in the world.
Cloz wrote:There is something that will never change is my love for Z3
smartypants wrote:Conor?

With an M??


The World's gone mad :D
smartypants wrote:The Z3 rear is a great thing to behold ;)
User avatar
OldskoolRS
Joined: Mon 06 Feb, 2012 14:23
Posts: 412

  Z3 roadster 3.0i
Location: Wokingham

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by OldskoolRS »

I actually found the 1.9 a hoot to drive once the top was down as it feels much faster. At 21 you might be wise to get some quotes first incase even the 1.9 is more than you're willing to pay. :( Hopefully it won't be and while you're at it get quotes for the 2.0 and 2.2 just to be sure. When I was looking I soon realised that if you narrow your selection too far then there aren't so many cars to chose from. I tried all types bar the 2.0 litre and M versions and they all appealed on different levels. The 2.2 I tried didn't seem that much slower than the 3.0 I ended up with. If I hadn't picked the 3.0, I probably would have bought a clean 1.9 private sale that I found (it was half the price, so a less 'serious' purchase, but a fun drive non the less).

To be honest, there are times that my 3.0 litre doesn't feel as powerful as I'd expect (low revs and in too high a gear is usually the cause, plus I drive a 320d as a company car), so it's sometimes more about making the most of what you have got and keeping the revs up to make progress.
swamper
Joined: Thu 13 May, 2010 17:14
Posts: 1866

  M roadster S50
Location: Mossley

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by swamper »

and your carrying another cylinder with anything above the 1.9.....get your self an M44 1.9 16v 140BHP and 1 less cylinder than the others :wink:
the badness makes me do it...!

Image
User avatar
Robert T
Site Admin
Joined: Mon 12 Jun, 2006 10:35
Posts: 10170

  Z3 roadster 1.9
Location: Cheshire

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by Robert T »

swamper wrote:and your carrying another cylinder with anything above the 1.9.....get your self an M44 1.9 16v 140BHP and 1 less cylinder than the others :wink:
When did BMW start producing 5 cylinder engines? :?

Cheers R.
Arctic Silver '99 Z3 1.9 & Black '59 Frogeye 1275cc
Image
User avatar
LookinFoolish
Joined: Sun 31 Jul, 2011 18:36
Posts: 294

  Z3 roadster 1.9
Contact:

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by LookinFoolish »

I'm 22 and own a Z3 and i have to say, regardless of speed, it's the look. I saw one today and i looked at the cars surrounding it and none looked anywhere near as good. Ok, maybe i'm a bit biased, but they are absolutely beautiful cars and the 1.9 is economical/fast enough without being a complete gas guzzler. It's a nice, sensible choice, especially for your age group. I really wouldn't care about getting a specific litre Z, but i'd care about getting a well looked after Z with low mileage and you'll be pleased :D
1997 BMW Z3 1.9l
swamper
Joined: Thu 13 May, 2010 17:14
Posts: 1866

  M roadster S50
Location: Mossley

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by swamper »

:lol: long day Rob....i think he'll get my point i meant 2 less... :roll:
the badness makes me do it...!

Image
User avatar
si-forks
Joined: Fri 08 Oct, 2010 17:38
Posts: 514

  Z3 roadster 1.9
Location: worcester

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by si-forks »

Nicely put lookingfoolish i agree with 100%

Si-forks on tapatalk
E30 318 1988 Gone
E36 320 1992 Gone

E36 328 1995 write off

E39 525d M Sport 2003 Current
E37 Z3 M44B1.9 1997 Current
ajdizz
Joined: Sun 15 Apr, 2012 08:19
Posts: 3

  Z3 roadster 1.9

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by ajdizz »

Ok guys, been a while but I finally got my Zed, Montreal Blue 1.9 M44 and I love it, been looking for any excuse to drive topless since having it, will get some pics up soon hopefully!
deutschemk
Joined: Mon 09 Apr, 2012 03:08
Posts: 41

  Z3 roadster 1.9

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by deutschemk »

Nice choice, get a few pictures up...its one of the only things I think sucks about being in my twenties, not being able to insure any of the larger engined performance geared cars without paying over 2k on insurance, hence why I also opted for the M44 1.9 16v... I'm more than happy with the MPG on my 1.9 although its not as fast as the 6 cylinder engines its truly a great/fun car to drive and in my honest opinion you've made the right choice and picked the best colour , lol, not that I'm biased towards montreal blue m44's :roll: not at all...... :wink: ,looking forward to seeing how it progresses over the coming months

Enjoy it

G
. Image
Mike Fishwick
Joined: Fri 19 Jun, 2009 10:27
Posts: 2093

  Z3 roadster 2.8
Location: Daglan, France

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by Mike Fishwick »

Get a 1.9 if you can still find a decent one, as they have the sharpest steering of any 6 cylinder Z3, thanks to not having another 50 pounds of engine weight in front of the axle line. A far better engine than the VW 16V Golf GTI engine of the same period, with more torque and better fuel economy.

It gives about the same performance as the 2 litre engine, and is also able to take a pair of Kent 312R camshafts, which will transform the car into a 2.2 equivalent, and with a decent cylinder head job too it would probably stay with a 2.8 to about 80 mph.

Forget the rubbish about how 'wonderful' the sixes sound - unless you like a boomy drone! Noisey exhausts are for the immature and the deaf . . .
A Z3 is not just for Christmas - it's for life!
pete59
Joined: Sat 04 Dec, 2010 14:55
Posts: 171

  Z3 roadster 2.0
Location: newark

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by pete59 »

Forget the rubbish about how 'wonderful' the sixes sound - unless you like a boomy drone! Noisey exhausts are for the im
mature and the deaf .... ( Boring old farts better stick with a 4 cyl then )
User avatar
PCSAM
Joined: Sat 13 Aug, 2011 01:19
Posts: 1002

  blank
Location: Taynuilt

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by PCSAM »

putting a good free flow stainless system with sports cat ....... brings the sound of the 4 cylder models to another level ...... its not your corsa with a drainpipe stuck on the back :roll:
its raspy but not loud ...and it looks great :D
Image
pete59
Joined: Sat 04 Dec, 2010 14:55
Posts: 171

  Z3 roadster 2.0
Location: newark

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by pete59 »

WELL SAID i spent a lot of money haveing a hand built quad system on my 2.0 and its sounds great ,,hes not as Mr fishwick seems to think. hes possably fed up with all the locals with big bore pipes on there 2 cvs to notice the differance.
User avatar
si-forks
Joined: Fri 08 Oct, 2010 17:38
Posts: 514

  Z3 roadster 1.9
Location: worcester

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by si-forks »

Mike Fishwick wrote:



It gives about the same performance as the 2 litre engine, and is also able to take a pair of Kent 312R camshafts, which will transform the car into a 2.2 equivalent, and with a decent cylinder head job too it would probably stay with a 2.8 to about 80 mph.
Please tell me more sounds right up my street !

Si-forks on tapatalk
E30 318 1988 Gone
E36 320 1992 Gone

E36 328 1995 write off

E39 525d M Sport 2003 Current
E37 Z3 M44B1.9 1997 Current
User avatar
OldskoolRS
Joined: Mon 06 Feb, 2012 14:23
Posts: 412

  Z3 roadster 3.0i
Location: Wokingham

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by OldskoolRS »

si-forks wrote:
Mike Fishwick wrote:



It gives about the same performance as the 2 litre engine, and is also able to take a pair of Kent 312R camshafts, which will transform the car into a 2.2 equivalent, and with a decent cylinder head job too it would probably stay with a 2.8 to about 80 mph.
Please tell me more sounds right up my street !

Si-forks on tapatalk
Me too...I'm wondering what similar could do to a 3.0 Z3. :)
Mike Fishwick
Joined: Fri 19 Jun, 2009 10:27
Posts: 2093

  Z3 roadster 2.8
Location: Daglan, France

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by Mike Fishwick »

The 1.9 should run very well on KEnt 312 R cams - we had them on Heather's Corrado a few years ago, with a good cylinder head job, and it went frm lifeless to lively, with far better fuel cnsumption too! It's an advantage of a non-vanos engine that camshafts are simple to make. Have a look at the Kent Cams website.

The 3 litre engine already uses a hotter inlet cam than the 2.8, and has larger inlet valves, Shrick being the onlymreal choice, at about £1200 a pair plus fitting - see the CA Autotechnic site, as they seem tobe the only dealer in the UK, and charge accordingly. I would prefer to have the work done in Germany.

A visit tothe Alpina factory showed that standard BMW cylinder heads are terrible - big steps in the inlet ports for example - I would spend money on a head job before camshafts.
A Z3 is not just for Christmas - it's for life!
User avatar
OldskoolRS
Joined: Mon 06 Feb, 2012 14:23
Posts: 412

  Z3 roadster 3.0i
Location: Wokingham

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by OldskoolRS »

Kind of academic at the moment, but interesting to know. TBH since I replaced a camshaft sensor recently the car is going quite fast enough, but no harm finding out what options there are. FWIW mine can be a little boomy low down, but oddly only with the hardtop on. Open roof or soft top it's fine and makes such a lovely noise once opened up I find it hard to stop myself. :D
User avatar
LookinFoolish
Joined: Sun 31 Jul, 2011 18:36
Posts: 294

  Z3 roadster 1.9
Contact:

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by LookinFoolish »

I have seen some dislike for the 1.9 on youtube reviews and all i can say is that the Z3 is a roadster. An open top roadster. By definition, the car is built for cruising on long open roads, with the top down. Speed shouldn't really be a big factor. Don't get me wrong, i'd love a big powerful Z, maybe even the M version, but a roadster is a beautiful thing and has so much history to it that if you base your car around pure speed alone, i believe you'll miss out on what the car is mainly designed for.
1997 BMW Z3 1.9l
BillyEvs
Joined: Wed 09 May, 2012 08:58
Posts: 22

  Z3 roadster 2.0

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by BillyEvs »

Just seen you've gone for the 1.9, hope it goes well!!!
Image
User avatar
BladeRunner919
Joined: Fri 17 Feb, 2012 20:18
Posts: 2225

  Z3 roadster 1.9

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by BladeRunner919 »

LookinFoolish wrote:I have seen some dislike for the 1.9 on youtube reviews and all i can say is that the Z3 is a roadster. An open top roadster. By definition, the car is built for cruising on long open roads, with the top down. Speed shouldn't really be a big factor.
You're so right. Especially when you have one of these in the garage, which would make an ///M driver cry all day long :D
CBR900RRT.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
OldskoolRS
Joined: Mon 06 Feb, 2012 14:23
Posts: 412

  Z3 roadster 3.0i
Location: Wokingham

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by OldskoolRS »

BladeRunner919 wrote:
LookinFoolish wrote:I have seen some dislike for the 1.9 on youtube reviews and all i can say is that the Z3 is a roadster. An open top roadster. By definition, the car is built for cruising on long open roads, with the top down. Speed shouldn't really be a big factor.
You're so right. Especially when you have one of these in the garage, which would make an ///M driver cry all day long :D
CBR900RRT.jpg
If I had one of those I think it would be my family that would be crying before long...

The different engines imbude the car with different characters (and running costs of course). I tried most versions in my search (apart from the 2.0 and ///M) and would have been happy with any of the ones that were in decent condition. In fact I couldn't make my mind up for a couple of days between 1.9, 2.2 and 3.0 examples that were all in good condition and priced suitably. I'm glad I chose what I did, but I think I would have been happy with any of them.

It doesn't matter what car you buy (///M included) there will always be someone richer with something more powerful, so although you could be a big fish in a little pond, out in the wider world there are Veyron owners, etc who probably would view the fastest Z3 as a slow car...Best just to enjoy whatever you have and don't worry about trying to impress anyone IMHO. Of couse fellow Z3 owners willl be impressed by your well turned out example, but then we have good taste. :)
gookah
Z Register member
Joined: Thu 07 Aug, 2008 09:51
Posts: 2737

  Z3 roadster 2.8

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by gookah »

BladeRunner919 wrote: You're so right. Especially when you have one of these in the garage, which would make an ///M driver cry all day long :D
CBR900RRT.jpg

What?.... a photograph of a motorcycle? :puzzle:
Image

Z3 2.8 Progress Journal (Mine)
Z3 1.9 Sport Progress Journal (Wifey's)

I have an element of 'M-styling' on my car, If that's a good enough reason for the manufacturers to adorn a 320 with the M badge, then its certainly a good enough reason for me..
User avatar
BladeRunner919
Joined: Fri 17 Feb, 2012 20:18
Posts: 2225

  Z3 roadster 1.9

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by BladeRunner919 »

gookah wrote: What?.... a photograph of a motorcycle? :puzzle:
Err no. The bike in the picture. Well not the actual bike in that picture, but one exactly like that.
gookah
Z Register member
Joined: Thu 07 Aug, 2008 09:51
Posts: 2737

  Z3 roadster 2.8

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by gookah »

BladeRunner919 wrote:
gookah wrote: What?.... a photograph of a motorcycle? :puzzle:
Err no. The bike in the picture. Well not the actual bike in that picture, but one exactly like that.
It's a bit small...
Image

Z3 2.8 Progress Journal (Mine)
Z3 1.9 Sport Progress Journal (Wifey's)

I have an element of 'M-styling' on my car, If that's a good enough reason for the manufacturers to adorn a 320 with the M badge, then its certainly a good enough reason for me..
User avatar
Badman gee
Joined: Sun 14 Nov, 2010 10:45
Posts: 2299

  M roadster S50

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by Badman gee »

pete59 wrote:Forget the rubbish about how 'wonderful' the sixes sound - unless you like a boomy drone! Noisey exhausts are for the im
mature and the deaf .... ( Boring old farts better stick with a 4 cyl then )
yep boring old farts :D
Image

The 'BEAST' 666
User avatar
Badman gee
Joined: Sun 14 Nov, 2010 10:45
Posts: 2299

  M roadster S50

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by Badman gee »

BladeRunner919 wrote:
LookinFoolish wrote:I have seen some dislike for the 1.9 on youtube reviews and all i can say is that the Z3 is a roadster. An open top roadster. By definition, the car is built for cruising on long open roads, with the top down. Speed shouldn't really be a big factor.
You're so right. Especially when you have one of these in the garage, which would make an ///M driver cry all day long :D
CBR900RRT.jpg
wouldnt make me cry,
Image

The 'BEAST' 666
User avatar
nobynom8ss
Joined: Tue 13 Apr, 2010 17:08
Posts: 87

  Z3 roadster 2.8
Location: wigston

Re: 1.9 or 2.0

Post by nobynom8ss »

not to sure where this one is going i have got a 929 fire blade and a z3 all be it only a 2.8 how ever the bike spends more time in the garage . And i spend more time in the z . Any way back to 1.9 or 2.0 hi and welcome if you can afford a 2.0 go for it they look much better close up . but at the end of the day what ever you do get as long as it is a z enjoy
and get the top down
Post Reply