BMW Z3 M roadster vs. S2000

So I'm looking for a different car, and these are two high on my list (but not the only ones on the list). May be looking at one of each in a couple of weeks. Interested in any comments about actual experiences, things to look out for, and personal preferences. I've been checking internet sites, so I probably know about some of the problem areas, but any insight is appreciated. Looking at around $15K, so there are cars out there at 50K miles or so.

I haven't seen many clean Z3M's or S2K's in that price range.

The S2000 is more of a sports car. The Z3M is more of a muscular touring car. Both are fun, but I'd go for the S2000 if everything else were equal. It's more reliable, doesn't eat it's own subframe, etc.

the Z3M is a widowmaker. Lots of power, a flexible chassis, and the older style semi-trailing arm rear suspension can make them a real handful if you are not 100% sure of what you are doing. But what a sound from that lovely Straight 6

S2k handles better, looks better, is easier on the wallet.

rotard wrote: The Z3M is more of a muscular touring car.

That's great term to describe the Z3M. Short wheelbase + lots of 6cyl power + E30 semi trailing arms = pay a-damn-ttention

It's a hoot to drive

If you do find one in the 15K range, you will need to go over it with a fine tooth comb.

Think of an S2k as a Miata with all knobs turned up to 11 and you're not far off.

I looked at both and bought the S.

I really, really wanted to like the BMW better and I went to the dealers ready to plunk down some money, but it just didn't compare to the S in any way other than they were small convertibles.

The Bimmer is loungy and the S is MANIC!

I'm MANIC so it was a perfect fit.

I have no argument that in any rational objective data based argument the S2000 is the better car. But for me (opinions and arseholes remember) this is a total non brainer. The S2000 is plain ugly and the Z3 is just gorgeous. Also if lap times or autocross is your thing then again the S2K probably wins if you can stay awake long enough. If however what you want is fun and enjoyment, then again for me the Z3 is the clear winner.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: I have no argument that in any rational objective data based argument the S2000 is the better car. But for me (opinions and arseholes remember) this is a total non brainer. The S2000 is plain ugly and the Z3 is just gorgeous. Also if lap times or autocross is your thing then again the S2K probably wins if you can stay awake long enough. If however what you want is fun and enjoyment, then again for me the Z3 is the clear winner.

Wow, so much wrong in one post.

OK, it won't let you link Facebook pics.

What does the peanut gallery think if you are more into long distance touring that local driving. I would think the S2000 would get on your nerves on the road.

spitfirebill wrote: What does the peanut gallery think if you are more into long distance touring that local driving. I would think the S2000 would get on your nerves on the road.

It doesn't.

The S is two, two cars in one!

There's the sedate one that cruises on the highway and consistently got better gas mileage than my Miata while on the highway. And then there's the other one!!

The S52 M Roadster is a good car - but in my opinion, the only advantage it has over the S2000 is torque. The S54 M Roadster (2001–2002) adds more torque and 85 horsepower. It is a beast. If you get an ///M, get that one.

The M Roadsters are E30 verts with the engine and brake swaps you would want professionally done for you at the factory and with swoopier bodywork. They are great cars in their own right and are damn fun to drive at the limit because you do need to stay ahead of them. If your primary drive is on a country road, to dinner with the mrs, top down cruising to get there and then a dash off to the cape for the weekend... perfectly suited. Torque is nice to have when cruising. They can also be very fast on a race track but if that is where you are headed - The S2000 is just sublime.

So... lazy drives with spirited opportunities, and perhaps some converstaion over the wind noise... Z3M.

Speed related hoonage that usually needs a helmet, S2000.

YMMV.

nderwater wrote: The S52 M Roadster is a good car - but in my opinion, the only advantage it has over the S2000 is torque. The S54 M Roadster (2001–2002) adds more torque and 85 horsepower. It is a beast. If you get an ///M, get that one.

Just remember the s54 powered ones are nasty......as in blow the doors off the s2k faster....and they love ripping the trunk floor out if the rear subframe isn't reinforced.

the z3 shares the same e36 front, e30 rear suspension of the 318ti.....for a midlife crisis male enhancement, the z3 wins. As an autocrosser, it all depends on how competitive you want it to be.....the s2k is great in its class, but the tail happiness of the z3 and ti are amusing as all get out too.

They BOTH hold their own when properly outfitted at the track. The S2K is a little cheaper to mod and maintain than the E36/8 M Roadster, but a little more common out and about. M Roadsters in good condition will be hard to find at that price.

The trunk floor is what scares people and it seems to be the only "nag" that the E36/8 has as far as issues. My '00 M Coupe' has 114K miles, and I've tracked it quite a bit and haven't noticed any subframe failure... yet.... As a preventative mx in the future, I'll re-enforce it and change out a few bushings. There is a Subject Matter Expert on the net named Randy Forbes that is the syndicate when it comes to E36/8 subframe issues/repair. Check his comments out...

Test drive both, and then make your decision.

An M Coupe is a different story.. Check out mcoupebuyersguide.com for net deals.

Good luck..

carguy123 wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: I have no argument that in any rational objective data based argument the S2000 is the better car. But for me (opinions and arseholes remember) this is a total non brainer. The S2000 is plain ugly and the Z3 is just gorgeous. Also if lap times or autocross is your thing then again the S2K probably wins if you can stay awake long enough. If however what you want is fun and enjoyment, then again for me the Z3 is the clear winner.

Wow, so much wrong in one post.

Hey, I pointed it it's my opinion, your entitled to be as wrong as you like

carguy123 wrote: OK, it won't let you link Facebook pics.

OK, I'm dying to know, were you trying to link a pic from my facebook? I haven't been on there in slightly longer than forever so should I be scared?

I've always thought the S2K was a very handsome car. The looks may not make people drool with lust but I've never heard it called ugly before. Opinions, etc.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: OK, I'm dying to know, were you trying to link a pic from my facebook? I haven't been on there in slightly longer than forever so should I be scared?

I guess it depends upon what you are putting on Facebook, but no I was trying to link to a picture of my S2000 that I use as the banner for my Facebook page.

In reply to M3Loco:

I'm still envious of yours though.....but my KW's will fit on a z3M.....

One day, I will buy a z3m coupe, I want white or evergreen though.

My dad was recently shopping S2000s and my friend's dad decided to sell his M Roadster around the same time. We drove the M and I asked dad which he preferred the Honda or the M. His reply: "what Honda?" Keep in mind he picked it over the S because it was way more comfortable, had gobs more torque, and he's a muscle car guy. 275s on the back end of that car is just sexy.

I'd pick the S2000 if autocrossing, or serious track days are a priority. If you are looking for a daily / weekend fun toy, I'd prefer the M-vert.

Torque is awfully nice, and the S2000 is pretty gutless unless you are driving it like you stole it. I've never been a fan of the S2000 interior either, while I really like the Z3- M Roadster's dash and gauges. Looks are in the eye of the beholder, but to me the Z-M looks voluptuous and sexy, where the S2000 while not unattractive, looks like it was designed by a computer.

They are very different cars, both great, but it all depends what your intended use is, and which car "turns you on".

Joe Gearin wrote: Torque is awfully nice, and the S2000 is pretty gutless unless you are driving it like you stole it.

So you don't like the Miata either? Because enginewise and interior wise the S beats it.

I've set my S up against my Miata in every low rpm, torqueless pull situation you can imagine and always the S pulls as hard as or even a little harder than the Miata. Of course once VTEC kicks in the Miata disappears in the dust.

I changed to a 6 speed which was the equivalent of putting lower gears in the rear end and even then the Miata was only marginally faster in SOME situations.

The issue is there's sooo much difference between it's Dr. Jeckle and it Mr. Hyde modes.

Jim - Chip Clark is going to be at the Sept 8th track day, and I know he's mulling over selling his M Coupe. Might be a good opportunity to talk to him, try one out and possibly even buy one

I suspect the M Coupe would be more fun as a road car, torque is always good for that. I have limited seat time in an S2000 on the road, but my impression was that it was like a late model RX7 - you simply couldn't run the car hard on the street.

carguy123---

I said I liked both cars. I also thought we were comparing the Z3- M Roadster and the S2000. I don't remember a Miata coming into the conversation, but this is the GRM board, so a Miata is bound to find it's way in somehow.

Like I said.......whatever floats your boat.

Thanks, Keith - I knew Chip was thinking about it, but I'll be in Denver this time and can't make the next track day. I do plan to be at the October event. And these are just two of the cars I'm considering - yes, Miatas are in the mix, too. And I don't run my cars hard on the street, that's what the track is for.

Can you send me Chip's email address? I'd prefer a coupe, but they are pretty thin on the ground, and generally out of my cheapskate price range.