Yes, its a shocker.Gotta be under 5ft 11 to drive it, skinny and like leaks. The back screen was a major fail.
It looked cool.but thats it.
friendly_prawn,
Jan 20, 2:50pm
It was about one of the only Eruo cars (in my price range) that I would have ever considered owning too. oh well. lol
edangus,
Jan 20, 2:54pm
Have you tested one!It may suit you. I was just very dissapointed with it. But I am a bit of a big guy. Very nice ladies summer car though.
I even struggle to fit in an E46 M3 (Which I do like) - Feet are too big!
bitsy_boffin,
Jan 20, 2:55pm
Have had both MX5 and Z3.
Compared to the MX5. yes it was poor as a "drivers car".
Looked great, no question of that, simplybeautiful looking car, but it just didn't have the handling of the MX5.
That said, I only ever drove an automatic small engine Z3 for a while.But a bigger engine and manual probably wouldn't have made the handling any crisper.
Of course, if you just want a car to cruise about in comfortably and looking sweet, nothing wrong with it then at all.
friendly_prawn,
Jan 20, 3:03pm
MX5 was too small for me.It seems the toppart of the window frame blocks my vision.I think they need to lower the seat on MX5's a little would probably be a good idea.
ralphdog1,
Jan 20, 3:08pm
Have driven the Z3, MX5 and an S2000. The Z3 is the one I have not owned. and would not either. But that is about what I want out of a car. Would depend on what you want and your expectations. Remember they come with more than 1 engine too.
ralphdog1,
Jan 20, 3:08pm
That would almost involve cutting a hole in the floor.
bitsy_boffin,
Jan 20, 3:10pm
Z4 I have heard is far better than the Z3 in terms of handling, I prefer the 3 looks though.
But even if you should win lotto do not buy a Z8 because even though they are stunningly beautiful and hideously expensive, they are also hopelessly terribleat everything, including staying in one piece.
richard198,
Jan 20, 3:12pm
It also suffered from chassis twisting. They stiffened up the chassis for the Z4.
friendly_prawn,
Jan 20, 3:15pm
z4s are fugly.
geedubu,
Jan 20, 5:18pm
I have had a z3 for about 18 months now.I'm 5'11" & fit OK.Mine is a 2 litre 6cylinder widebody with power top etc.I'm very pleased with it & I have owned a LOT of sports cars.Handling is entirely OK (I think the 6cyl widebody has different suspension/settings from the base 4 cylinder), ride is very comfortable.Adequate power, very good auto gearbox, lovely exhaust note, altogether a very satisfactory sunny day car.I have driven the base 4cylinder & a 6 wide is a much better car.Recommend them as an enjoyable 2nd car.
phillip.weston,
Jan 20, 5:37pm
I've driven a Z3 for approx 300kms and I found I fit into it just fine (am 6ft) but it was a bit snug. It was the 2.8L 6cyl auto version. My biggest gripe with it was that it suffered badly from bump-steer - you could barely keep the thing pointing straight ahead! I don't know if it was wack wheel alignment settings, or the car itself. The tyres showed no sign of a bad wheel alignment though.
It was low kms and had a few major faults with the ABS module and the air bag clock spring and seat sensor.
tantric5,
Jan 20, 5:42pm
I owned a z3, 3 litre widebody for 3 weeks.Im 6ft.it was okkkkkk.nothing to write home about. I just bought it on a whim to save hiring a car whilst on holiday, and then resold it for what I paid.
I much prefer my 330 motorsport
pfemstn,
Jan 20, 5:49pm
get what you pay for buy a 1900 and you probably will be disappointed, however buy a 2,8 manual. or genuine m car 3.2 litre and its a completely different ball game
geedubu,
Jan 20, 6:13pm
A genuine M-sport 3.2 is a very rare beast and deservedly very very expensive. I've seen quite a few 6cyls on here advertised as M-sports.They have some M-badging & maybe bits (mine does too) but they are NOT the Z3 M.As for the bump-steer problem had to be duff set-up or wear (I had the tie-rods on mine renewed).Don't bump-steer when in normal condition. I'm not saying it's the greatest car I've ever owned but as a relaxing and enjoyable all-rounder I'm very happy with it. I've got a race car for when I want to race.Z3's are cheap these days too.
wrong2,
Jan 20, 6:49pm
Live Rear Axel
why BWM why
pfemstn,
Jan 20, 7:55pm
wrong2wrong wrong wrong your name answers correctly
richard198,
Jan 20, 8:36pm
Funnily enough, they're wrong about most things! (including spelling)
phillip.weston,
Jan 20, 8:53pm
Funny looking live rear axle. can't remember the time BMW last used a live rear axle.
It has the rear suspension from an E30 rather than the E36 the rest of the chassis was based on, simply because the E30 rear end had a smaller profile and gave more room for the boot and space for the top to fold down into.
johnalan1595,
Jan 20, 11:02pm
i have owned 2 mx5s 2 bmw 3sbut now drive a mercedes slk 320 not to be confused with the 230 this is the best of the lot .hold onto your hat and enjoy the ride of your life (i'm 78 and still enjoy the thrill) john
jmma,
Jan 20, 11:37pm
Good on you, keep holding your hat and go for it (o:
doug207,
Jan 20, 11:53pm
Have driven a few of them and to be blunt they're poo. The E36 (which they are based on) drives and handles far, far better.
If I was buying a Z3, it would have to have no less than the 2.8 in it, the 1900 is a slug and the auto behind it is a sloppy four speed. They're very.beige.
I'd much rather an S2000 as a drivers car, I personally think they're a better package than an MX-5 or Z3.
foxdonut,
Jan 21, 12:19am
In its day it was an okay looker. A better image car than the MX5. Pretty sure the target audience was bored housewives and overindulged princess types, so the performance probably doesn't matter.
These days they're an overpriced heap of shit compared to the other options.
I'd go a Z4GT or a Wiesmann if I was buying a German sportster. Convertibles aren't my thing.
r.g.nixon,
Jan 21, 12:22am
Only drove a Z3 once. Hated it for the poor visibility and the heavy clutch.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.