Advice

[Silverzedtom]

Thank you to all of you have replied I won't be buying one without service history I do like a bit of history with my cars, I think I will leave the car as could be nothing but also could be something expensive. Thank you for the link to the buyers guide I shall be looking through that when I get home hopefully I have avoided a potential problem car.
Back on the search.
Cheers.
Matt.

Good call on walking away in my opinion , so many Zeds so finding a goodun shouldn't be hard at all. It's so easy to fall in love when viewing cars.

I could be way off but I'm going to have a guess that your the same age as me as you have 94 in your name. I was looking at Zeds and found the 2.5si not too much higher than the 2.0 on insurance. The straight six n52 engine is awesome... lovely noise, complete with crackles when letting of the go pedal. You most probably have but I'd at least check insurance. I'm with Aviva and rate them

[ESP]

The straight six n52 engine is awesome... lovely noise, complete with crackles when letting of the go pedal.

The 2.0lt does this, well mine does, but this is dependant of the exhaust.

It keeps being mentioned to Matt "Insurance on a straight 6 is not much higher"
(+plus running costs, servicing, petrol, Tax is not much higher)
thats adding up to be a lot of not much mores, over 12 months.

But HEY its not our money

[kis]

Thanks again for all of your replies a 2.2 or 2.5 might be do able insirance wise as it sounds like the better car all I need to do is find one that is straight and clean whatever car and engine I get it sounds like there isn't a sortage of knowledge around which is a big help thanks again to all who have given their advice and opinion soon hopefully I'll in my own Z4 learning all about it one way or another
Cheers
Matt

Hows the search going? Are you sticking to 2.2 and 2.5 in your searches?
Have you decided on whether to get a facelift? Or sticking to pre facelift (much more affordable now due to age)?
Hope everything stacks up and you can get one! The Zed really is a great car

[MT94]

Thank you to all of you have replied I won't be buying one without service history I do like a bit of history with my cars, I think I will leave the car as could be nothing but also could be something expensive. Thank you for the link to the buyers guide I shall be looking through that when I get home hopefully I have avoided a potential problem car.
Back on the search.
Cheers.
Matt.

Good call on walking away in my opinion , so many Zeds so finding a goodun shouldn't be hard at all. It's so easy to fall in love when viewing cars.

I could be way off but I'm going to have a guess that your the same age as me as you have 94 in your name. I was looking at Zeds and found the 2.5si not too much higher than the 2.0 on insurance. The straight six n52 engine is awesome... lovely noise, complete with crackles when letting of the go pedal. You most probably have but I'd at least check insurance. I'm with Aviva and rate them

Yeah I'm 22 until next month and I have checked Aviva and surprisingly I can get insured for just under £900 all the way up to a 3 litre so hopefully this will give me more breathing room for car buying

[Pastry]

Good luck with your search MT94. Don't be put off by the keyboard warriors and children, there are plenty on decent folk on here more than happy to help with problems and useful advice. I think most of us would opt for a 6cyl given the choice so if all the figures stack up, that would be my recommendation

[Pabby1980]

The straight six n52 engine is awesome... lovely noise, complete with crackles when letting of the go pedal.

The 2.0lt does this, well mine does, but this is dependant of the exhaust.

It keeps being mentioned to Matt "Insurance on a straight 6 is not much higher"
(+plus running costs, servicing, petrol, Tax is not much higher)
thats adding up to be a lot of not much mores, over 12 months.

But HEY its not our money

The big expense I've noticed with the 3.0 is the petrol. As much as people may say that on paper the mpg isn't much different, from a layman's point of view, I have been quite shocked at how much fuel my new Zed drinks.

This may be down to the excitement of having a new car and being a bit heavy footed, but I can't imagine the 2.0s are anywhere near as thirsty in "real" terms. Over the course of a year I'm sure it does make a difference having a smaller engine.

Quite surprised that the OP can get insurance for £900 on a 3.0 though...that sounds pretty cheap to me.

You're right though, it's the running costs that all add up. I'm thinking of changing my tyres to Michelin and been quoted £600...ouch.

[keith777]

The straight six n52 engine is awesome... lovely noise, complete with crackles when letting of the go pedal.

The 2.0lt does this, well mine does, but this is dependant of the exhaust.


Any info on exhaust for the 2 litre ?
Would like mine to sound a little better.
Cheers Keith.

[MACK]

Thank you to all of you have replied I won't be buying one without service history I do like a bit of history with my cars, I think I will leave the car as could be nothing but also could be something expensive. Thank you for the link to the buyers guide I shall be looking through that when I get home hopefully I have avoided a potential problem car.
Back on the search.
Cheers.
Matt.

Good call on walking away in my opinion , so many Zeds so finding a goodun shouldn't be hard at all. It's so easy to fall in love when viewing cars.

I could be way off but I'm going to have a guess that your the same age as me as you have 94 in your name. I was looking at Zeds and found the 2.5si not too much higher than the 2.0 on insurance. The straight six n52 engine is awesome... lovely noise, complete with crackles when letting of the go pedal. You most probably have but I'd at least check insurance. I'm with Aviva and rate them

Yeah I'm 22 until next month and I have checked Aviva and surprisingly I can get insured for just under £900 all the way up to a 3 litre so hopefully this will give me more breathing room for car buying

Did you manage to try any of the specialist brokers? The reason I ask is years back when I was young and insuring performance cars etc I got a quote from Aviva (think they were still Norwich Union back then). Went to a few brokers and Adrian Flux were the cheapest about half what I had been quoted by the mainstream, but Aviva was actually the insurance provider. Apparently the specialist brokers get access to schemes not in the mainstream arena. Might be worth a go if you haven't already!

One thing you haven't mentioned (apologizes if you have I've missed it) is what sort of annual mileage you cover. Obviously this will have a huge bearing on how important mpg is to you.

[ESP]

The straight six n52 engine is awesome... lovely noise, complete with crackles when letting of the go pedal.

The 2.0lt does this, well mine does, but this is dependant of the exhaust.


Any info on exhaust for the 2 litre ?
Would like mine to sound a little better.
Cheers Keith.

Yeah, as far as i am aware, only myself and forum member JINGLE have this Quad exhaust made by EMP Performance in St Albans. Id highly recommend them, their welding work is a work of art!

If anyones getting a Quad conversion, id suggest going no where else. Ive seen some shocking alternatives done elsewhere.

[enzed4]

http://www.premiercarsashford.co.uk/use ... site-visit

That's a very tidy looking 6 cylinder Zed without crazy miles for a nice price .

[MACK]

Right I'm sat in an Airport bored waiting for a delayed flight so I thought I would pass the time giving this a few facts and some context just in case anyone is still reading this!

First off lets be clear, obviously a 3.0 is going to cost more to run as a total package than a 2.0, there's no disputing that!

Lets take the 2 cars running costs over a year, a 2.0 which has the best fuel economy in the range and the pre face lift 3.0 which has the worst (M's excluded) and we will assume both cars never develop a mechanical fault and all figures (mpg/tax) are take from trader.

1) Insurance - its always going to be more for a 3.0 and than it will for a 2.0, could be a little, could be a lot and entirely depends on someones circumstances so we can't really quantify it here, nor can it be ignored.
2) Tax - The 2.0 is £240 and the 3.0 is £305 or about £5 a month, so not really a deal breaker by anyone's standards.
3) Servicing - Assuming one full service a year your talking a few extra litres of oil and a couple of plugs (and the labour to fit) for the 3.0 over the 2.0. Lets call it £50 and in reality the cars don't need plugs every service.
4) Tyres - Well if your running the same size wheels and tyres then there's not going to be a difference in cost. I know it can be argued that the more powerful car will wear tyres more quickly but in reality its just as dependent on your right foot.
5) Brakes - The 3.0 run bigger disc both front and rear but the cost of these over 2.0 from places like Brakes International for example is circa £5 per disc, again not a deal breaker and you certainly shouldn't need them every year anyway. Pads are basically the same price and fitting would be the same between the cars.
6) Fuel - this is the biggie really, assuming the 12k per year and using the quoted average mpg on trader the cars are about 6mpg apart which would run you to somewhere in the region of £400 or so depending on fuel prices where you are. Obviously this is very dependent on your right foot. This figure is equally true of a 2.2 or 2.5 as they delivery within about 1 mpg of the 3.0 manual. I can say from first hand experience with E46's this is true, but is still quite unbelievable when you think the 2.2 is nearly a litre smaller than 3.0! Auto's also delivery circa 1 mpg difference to their manual equivalent.

All in excluding insurance cost and no breakdowns/repairs a 3.0 going to run you to something like an extra £550 a year to run. Most of that's fuel and it assumes your changing the plugs/pads/discs every 12 months which your wouldn't/shouldn't be.

For a petrol 3.0 that's running 15-20 year old technology the E85 is pretty damn impressive on fuel and I can't believe anyone's complaining about it. What the hell were you expecting? Lots of owners report a typical circa 30 mpg which is roughly what I get. My old 2005 3.2 Boxster in comparison used to get about 23 mpg doing similar driving (Ok it had a little more grunt) and E46's I've owned in the past with 3.0 M54 engine used to get about the same as the Boxster probably due to the extra weight. For me even doing 12k pa an extra £50 a month would make the 3.0 more than worth it. Its got a better, more powerful, more reliable, smoother engine and is much better equipped from the factory in standard form, it gets bigger brakes, leather electric seats etc amongst other things and then tends to be optioned up much more than the 2.0's are. All this for the same sort of money as 2.0 these days, it does seems a bit of a no brainer unless insurance really is a killer or your doing mega mileage. Yes when the price difference between a 2.0 and a 3.0 was £5-10k then a 2.0 made alot of sense, especially new with a 3 year warranty for peace of mind, but now in today's market as a buyer I honestly can't see the appeal unless the financials of insurance/fuel that I mentioned are enough to steer you there and then if your unlucky enough to fall foul of one of the well document issues of the 2.0 then any saving you've made are probably gone up in smoke.

I'm really not trying to fall out with folks over this or upset them and its not "2.0 hate" for the sake of it, its just the facts of the case.

[Steve84N]

Well said.

[Pabby1980]

Right I'm sat in an Airport bored waiting for a delayed flight so I thought I would pass the time giving this a few facts and some context just in case anyone is still reading this!

First off lets be clear, obviously a 3.0 is going to cost more to run as a total package than a 2.0, there's no disputing that!

Lets take the 2 cars running costs over a year, a 2.0 which has the best fuel economy in the range and the pre face lift 3.0 which has the worst (M's excluded) and we will assume both cars never develop a mechanical fault and all figures (mpg/tax) are take from trader.

1) Insurance - its always going to be more for a 3.0 and than it will for a 2.0, could be a little, could be a lot and entirely depends on someones circumstances so we can't really quantify it here, nor can it be ignored.
2) Tax - The 2.0 is £240 and the 3.0 is £305 or about £5 a month, so not really a deal breaker by anyone's standards.
3) Servicing - Assuming one full service a year your talking a few extra litres of oil and a couple of plugs (and the labour to fit) for the 3.0 over the 2.0. Lets call it £50 and in reality the cars don't need plugs every service.
4) Tyres - Well if your running the same size wheels and tyres then there's not going to be a difference in cost. I know it can be argued that the more powerful car will wear tyres more quickly but in reality its just as dependent on your right foot.
5) Brakes - The 3.0 run bigger disc both front and rear but the cost of these over 2.0 from places like Brakes International for example is circa £5 per disc, again not a deal breaker and you certainly shouldn't need them every year anyway. Pads are basically the same price and fitting would be the same between the cars.
6) Fuel - this is the biggie really, assuming the 12k per year and using the quoted average mpg on trader the cars are about 6mpg apart which would run you to somewhere in the region of £400 or so depending on fuel prices where you are. Obviously this is very dependent on your right foot. This figure is equally true of a 2.2 or 2.5 as they delivery within about 1 mpg of the 3.0 manual. I can say from first hand experience with E46's this is true, but is still quite unbelievable when you think the 2.2 is nearly a litre smaller than 3.0! Auto's also delivery circa 1 mpg difference to their manual equivalent.

All in excluding insurance cost and no breakdowns/repairs a 3.0 going to run you to something like an extra £550 a year to run. Most of that's fuel and it assumes your changing the plugs/pads/discs every 12 months which your wouldn't/shouldn't be.

For a petrol 3.0 that's running 15-20 year old technology the E85 is pretty damn impressive on fuel and I can't believe anyone's complaining about it. What the hell were you expecting? Lots of owners report a typical circa 30 mpg which is roughly what I get. My old 2005 3.2 Boxster in comparison used to get about 23 mpg doing similar driving (Ok it had a little more grunt) and E46's I've owned in the past with 3.0 M54 engine used to get about the same as the Boxster probably due to the extra weight. For me even doing 12k pa an extra £50 a month would make the 3.0 more than worth it. Its got a better, more powerful, more reliable, smoother engine and is much better equipped from the factory in standard form, it gets bigger brakes, leather electric seats etc amongst other things and then tends to be optioned up much more than the 2.0's are. All this for the same sort of money as 2.0 these days, it does seems a bit of a no brainer unless insurance really is a killer or your doing mega mileage. Yes when the price difference between a 2.0 and a 3.0 was £5-10k then a 2.0 made alot of sense, especially new with a 3 year warranty for peace of mind, but now in today's market as a buyer I honestly can't see the appeal unless the financials of insurance/fuel that I mentioned are enough to steer you there and then if your unlucky enough to fall foul of one of the well document issues of the 2.0 then any saving you've made are probably gone up in smoke.

I'm really not trying to fall out with folks over this or upset them and its not "2.0 hate" for the sake of it, its just the facts of the case.

Maybe you should've started with this comment mate. You're clearly a smart guy, with a lot of info to share about these cars.

Enjoy your holiday whilst the rest of us deal with this bloody awful weather!

[MACK]

Right I'm sat in an Airport bored waiting for a delayed flight so I thought I would pass the time giving this a few facts and some context just in case anyone is still reading this!

First off lets be clear, obviously a 3.0 is going to cost more to run as a total package than a 2.0, there's no disputing that!

Lets take the 2 cars running costs over a year, a 2.0 which has the best fuel economy in the range and the pre face lift 3.0 which has the worst (M's excluded) and we will assume both cars never develop a mechanical fault and all figures (mpg/tax) are take from trader.

1) Insurance - its always going to be more for a 3.0 and than it will for a 2.0, could be a little, could be a lot and entirely depends on someones circumstances so we can't really quantify it here, nor can it be ignored.
2) Tax - The 2.0 is £240 and the 3.0 is £305 or about £5 a month, so not really a deal breaker by anyone's standards.
3) Servicing - Assuming one full service a year your talking a few extra litres of oil and a couple of plugs (and the labour to fit) for the 3.0 over the 2.0. Lets call it £50 and in reality the cars don't need plugs every service.
4) Tyres - Well if your running the same size wheels and tyres then there's not going to be a difference in cost. I know it can be argued that the more powerful car will wear tyres more quickly but in reality its just as dependent on your right foot.
5) Brakes - The 3.0 run bigger disc both front and rear but the cost of these over 2.0 from places like Brakes International for example is circa £5 per disc, again not a deal breaker and you certainly shouldn't need them every year anyway. Pads are basically the same price and fitting would be the same between the cars.
6) Fuel - this is the biggie really, assuming the 12k per year and using the quoted average mpg on trader the cars are about 6mpg apart which would run you to somewhere in the region of £400 or so depending on fuel prices where you are. Obviously this is very dependent on your right foot. This figure is equally true of a 2.2 or 2.5 as they delivery within about 1 mpg of the 3.0 manual. I can say from first hand experience with E46's this is true, but is still quite unbelievable when you think the 2.2 is nearly a litre smaller than 3.0! Auto's also delivery circa 1 mpg difference to their manual equivalent.

All in excluding insurance cost and no breakdowns/repairs a 3.0 going to run you to something like an extra £550 a year to run. Most of that's fuel and it assumes your changing the plugs/pads/discs every 12 months which your wouldn't/shouldn't be.

For a petrol 3.0 that's running 15-20 year old technology the E85 is pretty damn impressive on fuel and I can't believe anyone's complaining about it. What the hell were you expecting? Lots of owners report a typical circa 30 mpg which is roughly what I get. My old 2005 3.2 Boxster in comparison used to get about 23 mpg doing similar driving (Ok it had a little more grunt) and E46's I've owned in the past with 3.0 M54 engine used to get about the same as the Boxster probably due to the extra weight. For me even doing 12k pa an extra £50 a month would make the 3.0 more than worth it. Its got a better, more powerful, more reliable, smoother engine and is much better equipped from the factory in standard form, it gets bigger brakes, leather electric seats etc amongst other things and then tends to be optioned up much more than the 2.0's are. All this for the same sort of money as 2.0 these days, it does seems a bit of a no brainer unless insurance really is a killer or your doing mega mileage. Yes when the price difference between a 2.0 and a 3.0 was £5-10k then a 2.0 made alot of sense, especially new with a 3 year warranty for peace of mind, but now in today's market as a buyer I honestly can't see the appeal unless the financials of insurance/fuel that I mentioned are enough to steer you there and then if your unlucky enough to fall foul of one of the well document issues of the 2.0 then any saving you've made are probably gone up in smoke.

I'm really not trying to fall out with folks over this or upset them and its not "2.0 hate" for the sake of it, its just the facts of the case.

Maybe you should've started with this comment mate. You're clearly a smart guy, with a lot of info to share about these cars.

Enjoy your holiday whilst the rest of us deal with this bloody awful weather!

Honestly If you read the thread properly you would see I didn't actually start the unpleasantness that erupted I just commented on someone else's rudeness etc, but mainly I responded to the fact the info they were so critical and disparaging about was totally correct and that they were just plain wrong. I was then targeted and gave as good as I got. Then you decided to completely unnecessarily wade in with your snide comments, I even let the first one slide but you couldn't help yourself. So (and I'm not wishing to start something else here) I don't really think you exactly covered yourself in glory either and certainly shouldn't be trying to hand out the advice!

[Pabby1980]

Right I'm sat in an Airport bored waiting for a delayed flight so I thought I would pass the time giving this a few facts and some context just in case anyone is still reading this!

First off lets be clear, obviously a 3.0 is going to cost more to run as a total package than a 2.0, there's no disputing that!

Lets take the 2 cars running costs over a year, a 2.0 which has the best fuel economy in the range and the pre face lift 3.0 which has the worst (M's excluded) and we will assume both cars never develop a mechanical fault and all figures (mpg/tax) are take from trader.

1) Insurance - its always going to be more for a 3.0 and than it will for a 2.0, could be a little, could be a lot and entirely depends on someones circumstances so we can't really quantify it here, nor can it be ignored.
2) Tax - The 2.0 is £240 and the 3.0 is £305 or about £5 a month, so not really a deal breaker by anyone's standards.
3) Servicing - Assuming one full service a year your talking a few extra litres of oil and a couple of plugs (and the labour to fit) for the 3.0 over the 2.0. Lets call it £50 and in reality the cars don't need plugs every service.
4) Tyres - Well if your running the same size wheels and tyres then there's not going to be a difference in cost. I know it can be argued that the more powerful car will wear tyres more quickly but in reality its just as dependent on your right foot.
5) Brakes - The 3.0 run bigger disc both front and rear but the cost of these over 2.0 from places like Brakes International for example is circa £5 per disc, again not a deal breaker and you certainly shouldn't need them every year anyway. Pads are basically the same price and fitting would be the same between the cars.
6) Fuel - this is the biggie really, assuming the 12k per year and using the quoted average mpg on trader the cars are about 6mpg apart which would run you to somewhere in the region of £400 or so depending on fuel prices where you are. Obviously this is very dependent on your right foot. This figure is equally true of a 2.2 or 2.5 as they delivery within about 1 mpg of the 3.0 manual. I can say from first hand experience with E46's this is true, but is still quite unbelievable when you think the 2.2 is nearly a litre smaller than 3.0! Auto's also delivery circa 1 mpg difference to their manual equivalent.

All in excluding insurance cost and no breakdowns/repairs a 3.0 going to run you to something like an extra £550 a year to run. Most of that's fuel and it assumes your changing the plugs/pads/discs every 12 months which your wouldn't/shouldn't be.

For a petrol 3.0 that's running 15-20 year old technology the E85 is pretty damn impressive on fuel and I can't believe anyone's complaining about it. What the hell were you expecting? Lots of owners report a typical circa 30 mpg which is roughly what I get. My old 2005 3.2 Boxster in comparison used to get about 23 mpg doing similar driving (Ok it had a little more grunt) and E46's I've owned in the past with 3.0 M54 engine used to get about the same as the Boxster probably due to the extra weight. For me even doing 12k pa an extra £50 a month would make the 3.0 more than worth it. Its got a better, more powerful, more reliable, smoother engine and is much better equipped from the factory in standard form, it gets bigger brakes, leather electric seats etc amongst other things and then tends to be optioned up much more than the 2.0's are. All this for the same sort of money as 2.0 these days, it does seems a bit of a no brainer unless insurance really is a killer or your doing mega mileage. Yes when the price difference between a 2.0 and a 3.0 was £5-10k then a 2.0 made alot of sense, especially new with a 3 year warranty for peace of mind, but now in today's market as a buyer I honestly can't see the appeal unless the financials of insurance/fuel that I mentioned are enough to steer you there and then if your unlucky enough to fall foul of one of the well document issues of the 2.0 then any saving you've made are probably gone up in smoke.

I'm really not trying to fall out with folks over this or upset them and its not "2.0 hate" for the sake of it, its just the facts of the case.

Maybe you should've started with this comment mate. You're clearly a smart guy, with a lot of info to share about these cars.

Enjoy your holiday whilst the rest of us deal with this bloody awful weather!

Honestly If you read the thread properly you would see I didn't actually start the unpleasantness that erupted I just commented on someone else's rudeness etc, but mainly I responded to the fact the info they were so critical and disparaging about was totally correct and that they were just plain wrong. I was then targeted and gave as good as I got. Then you decided to completely unnecessarily wade in with your snide comments, I even let the first one slide but you couldn't help yourself. So (and I'm not wishing to start something else here) I don't really think you exactly covered yourself in glory either and certainly shouldn't be trying to hand out the advice!

ffs you just can't stop can you?

Nevermind.