In Reply to: Re: 1.9 vs 2.8....................... (long reply) posted by BruceT on February 09, 2000 at 12:44:22:
I've owned an 84 325e, a 94 325IS and now, a 96 1.9Z3. I loved all these cars. Admittedly there are times when I miss that wonderful big smooth six cylinder engine, and I suppose that if the 2.8 had been available AT THE SAME price as a 1.9 in a Z3 when I bought mine, I would have opted for the larger engine. But I would have to drive one first. For me, a roadster is all about balance and handling and I'll go for less power and better balance every time. I do believe the little 1.9 engine makes the car feel livlier in the curves--not quite as nose heavy. Early complaints of 1.9 power centered mostly around the fact that these engines weren't broken in. Be aware that it takes about 30K miles to really break in a BMW engine. My 1.9 now has 26K and it's just starting to loosen up and feel like a "real car". I understand the improvement continues well into the 30K's.I have already gotten one ticket for going 77 in a 55 zone in this car. The 1.9 cruises effortlessly, and very quietly at 100 mph, if you dare to drive it that fast. I've had mine to 108 and chickened out. Mostly, I have to lightfoot it to stay within the speed limit. I really don't need more power--there's plenty for passing at 60 mph.
Finally, I have to comment on the wimpy exhaust sound. I like it. I've owned an MG-A, and MG-B and a TR-3. Yeah, they all sounded cooler than my Z but they drove me nuts on long drives. The droning of a loud exhaust does get to you. I've driven my Z as long as 14 hours straight with just foot and pee breaks and it's never tiring or too loud. The Z is really a "touring roadster" and BMW hit it right the first time. Supercharger? I wouldn't think of it. Why screw up a 500,000 mile engine.