1.9 Z3 v 2.8 Z3

[Ianmc]

I would appreciate any opinions on the following dilemma please.

I am intending to purchase a Z3 for routine commuting of 6/7 miles. The journey is entirely within 30 and 40 mph zones. This usage is not beneficial to my MC (or my license!).
I have been looking at pre facelift 2.8s for this and have formed the opinion that I would need to spent upward of £4K on a straight example (private seller) with moderate mileage (say 100k to 150Ks). Less if the car needs attention (new hood, minor body work, non major mechanicals etc). Rectifying a say £3K car would quickly bring the total spend back to the £4K mark or more. Likely expect to get circa 30mpg.

Have just seen a 1997 1.9 Z3 for sale in dark green, green leather heated seats, cruise control and a number of other factory extras. The mileage is around 70K with full dealer history. I very much like this car having viewed the specification and dealer pictures. Minor benefit is that it would come with some trade warranty. Car is advertised at £2995 so would hope to purchase for circa £2750 assuming no significant issues arise. Should get 35 mpg or there abouts.

My dilemma is would I be content with this engine? Had a 1.8 in 1997 that generally felt underpowered and not too smooth (recollections of 20 years ago sometimes fade though), but think the 1.9 has a few more horses. Since then all my BMWs have had straight six engines. I'm sure 1.9 owners would say the cars are great (and so they are) and I expect 2.8 owners will back the bigger engined car. Will seek to view and drive the car tomorrow, but constructive opinions either way would be much appreciated.

 

[Sean d]

If its only for short runs a 1.9 should suffice, however I would go for the M44 for the extra brake horse

 

[Ianmc]

Just seen that the M42 was superseded by the M44 at the end of 1996, so the 1997 car should be a M44 engine.

 

[colb]

I have a 1999 1.9 facelift but badged 1.8 extremely low mileage currently 38k, despite a few issues when I got it all down to bad sensors and Maf it is faultless, extremely pokey and smooth, wouldn't want anything bigger, its a summer car and suits our needs admirably. Loads out there for tiny money its a buyers market. I'm sure you would be happy with a 1.9 for what you want it to do.

 

[colb]

1.9 came with either M43 4 Pot or M44 4 pot depending on year. My 1999 is a M43 engine version.

 

[Ianmc]

Just found that the M44 replaced the M42 and was produced from 1996-2001. It was produced alongside the M43 engine, with the M44 being the higher performance engine. The M44 was replaced by the N42 engine.

Nothing is simple!

 

[Mnbrennan]

Join the Couoe plus 2.8 club Ian

 

[GazHyde]

One thing I've learnt over the years is to not knock the 1.9 M44, almost identical HP to my old 2.0 but with better fuel consumption. They are a little more nimble with the lighter 4 pot engine up front. Plenty of off the shelf mods available if you want to tinker, probably more so than the 6 cylinder engines. Driven a few now and can honestly say if the right one came up I'd have one.

Just stay away from the 118hp 8v M43 that was used for a few years in later model years.

 

[Vince]

If it's an M44 engine then I would say it's worth getting as its decent engine, I'm not sure I would want the M43 in a Zed as that is most probably a tad slow with115bhp but saying that I've had that engine in two BMWs now and although it's not quick it isn't a bad lump and reliable just check the head gasket is ok.

My father has the M43 8v in his 3 series Cabriolet and although he's not a boy racer the car does keep up in regular traffic and is very economical.

This is the M44 which is the more desirable 4 pot.
This is the M43

 

[Vince]

As you can tell the easy way to tell which engine is to just look at the cam cover as the M44 has the bigger head as its a twin cam.

 

[Grumps]

Forget the trade warranty, its a waste of paper. I know i sold them for long enough. The 1.9 is more than adequate for your requirements, running costs are not hugely different. You will get a 1.9 cheaper. The 2.8 pre facelift is starting to ask a higher selling price. A 2.8 will be more fun if you fancy a quick blast but for the mileage you do its horses for courses really.
My advice, get the best car you can find for your budget regardless of engine size.
Happy hunting.

 

[Ianmc]

Join the Couoe plus 2.8 club Ian

Great pair

 

[Z Victor 1]

You've got your 'M' , so if this is just to commute on restricted roads there seems little point in the extra cost of buying and running a 2.8. The 1.9 140 bhp is a great car to drive and I can't see that you would lose much in performance on those roads. I wouldn't discount the facelift 1.9 s with the 118 bhp engine as they are newer and I found mine surprisingly lively at lower speeds, plus it cruised happily at motorway speeds. It just lost out when on big hills and accelerating at higher speeds. For what you want I'd be inclined to go for the car with the best condition for the price.
Good luck in your search.

 

[andyglym]

If it were my money I'd go for the 4 pot as you have an ///M for thrills. Just my view of course

 

[Bozzy]

I have a pre face lift 2.8 which is great fun,but I recently drove a 1.9 with the less powerful engine,It's a face lift model.
I must say I was really surprised on it's performance,the 3rd gear range is excellent,almost as good as my 2.8.
It felt a little lighter to drive than mine as well,but just lacked that 6 cylinder character,but you have that to enjoy with your ///M.

Steve.

 

[Kevlaar]

1.9 for me.mine goes well,smooth and ultra reliable.keeps up on the twisty roads and cruises easily at motorway speeds.cheap as chips to run and cheap to insure.

 

[ljauto]

i would say buy the lowest mileage/decent history etc car within budget. The 2.8 is a better car , but i would say that , but a 2.8 of a similar standard to a 1.9 will always have a premium, then again its likely to be worth more over time as lower mileage ones are getting rarer and rarer

 

[spurs fan in a coupe]

License saving commute... the 1.9, plenty of fun, but easier to drive with sensible head on. I had a 2.8 LHD coupe for years and loved it, then a 1.9 track car and now a 2.8 track car, all have their merits.

My 1.9 is for sale currently

https://zroadster.org/threads/track...e-z3-1-9-1997-bright-red-woking-surrey.17618/

Just had cosmetic upgrades to match a years MOT, cruise control, roll hoops etc. If comfy seats (sport) are a deal breaker we could come to some kind of deal - I have some of them too!

PM me if you're interested @Ianmc

 

[oldcarman]

Personally I love my 1.9 M44 and find it has more than enough power to get me in trouble if I needed to. Handles great and in two and a half years of ownership, other than new tires and two new brake light bulbs and oil changes are the only necessary work I've had to perform. I had a new hood put on because I bought it for £100 plus a set of new green leather seat covers to get rid of my beige ones bought for £50 then had my friend install them at a very reasonable cost. Mileage is a good 37.5+ and best was 40.4. JIM

 

[Ianmc]

I have a pre face lift 2.8 which is great fun,but I recently drove a 1.9 with the less powerful engine,It's a face lift model.
I must say I was really surprised on it's performance,the 3rd gear range is excellent,almost as good as my 2.8.
It felt a little lighter to drive than mine as well,but just lacked that 6 cylinder character,but you have that to enjoy with your ///M.

Steve.

That got me thinking Steve. Something different to the MC might actually be attractive to me for its own sake, ie 4 pot convertible in the school of the MGB. Appreciate the thought.