Having owned the Z3 for 8 months and the MC for 13 years now, I have been asked a number of times about comparisons. Thought some may be interested in my impressions, if not, fair enough!
MC has obviously lots more power, but in the real world there is little effective difference to journey times if you keep to speed limits (ish). Traffic light GP starts are always easily winnable in the MC (0-60 under 5 seconds) and I suspect generally best avoided in the Z3 1.9. The MC has a "speed boat" trick, raising the bow on rapid acceleration - this is addictive.
Both cars are on standard suspension and handle well. The Z3 has a noticeably quicker turn in than the MC without using power. If the Z3 rack was fitted to the MC and full power applied mid corner it would likely dramatically oversteer, which could be fun but risky for the unprepared.
Fuel consumption is (best) 25 mpg for the MC, achieved well over 40 mpg for the Z3 over 200 miles mixed driving last weekend. Insurance cost is (surprisingly) equal. Twelve months’ tax is £295 (MC) and £235 (Z3).
The MC gets more attention (of the “what the hell is that” type?) but the Z3 gets out at junctions better!
Love the top down driving in the Z3 and the need to work the engine, as was always the case with a traditional 4 pot sports car. Z3 feels faster at sensible speeds on the road than the MC.
Z3 has an OBC (fuel consumption, range remaining, average speed, outside temperature) that the MC lacks. MC has analogue instruments for oil temperature (very important), clock and outside temperature. Both cars have aircon, heated seats, leather upholstery, cruise control but give a very different overall driving experience. Hard to quantify this but both are great in their own way. The MC seats are far more comfortable though after 30 minutes driving!
Is the MC worth 10 times as much as the Z3? Jurys out on that for now, but the Z3 is without doubt a great little affordable car – let’s not tell too many people!!!
Hope this is of interest to some!
MC has obviously lots more power, but in the real world there is little effective difference to journey times if you keep to speed limits (ish). Traffic light GP starts are always easily winnable in the MC (0-60 under 5 seconds) and I suspect generally best avoided in the Z3 1.9. The MC has a "speed boat" trick, raising the bow on rapid acceleration - this is addictive.
Both cars are on standard suspension and handle well. The Z3 has a noticeably quicker turn in than the MC without using power. If the Z3 rack was fitted to the MC and full power applied mid corner it would likely dramatically oversteer, which could be fun but risky for the unprepared.
Fuel consumption is (best) 25 mpg for the MC, achieved well over 40 mpg for the Z3 over 200 miles mixed driving last weekend. Insurance cost is (surprisingly) equal. Twelve months’ tax is £295 (MC) and £235 (Z3).
The MC gets more attention (of the “what the hell is that” type?) but the Z3 gets out at junctions better!
Love the top down driving in the Z3 and the need to work the engine, as was always the case with a traditional 4 pot sports car. Z3 feels faster at sensible speeds on the road than the MC.
Z3 has an OBC (fuel consumption, range remaining, average speed, outside temperature) that the MC lacks. MC has analogue instruments for oil temperature (very important), clock and outside temperature. Both cars have aircon, heated seats, leather upholstery, cruise control but give a very different overall driving experience. Hard to quantify this but both are great in their own way. The MC seats are far more comfortable though after 30 minutes driving!
Is the MC worth 10 times as much as the Z3? Jurys out on that for now, but the Z3 is without doubt a great little affordable car – let’s not tell too many people!!!
Hope this is of interest to some!
