Focus ST Vs BMW Z4 3.0 on Fuel

Vanquished007 · 27 Apr 2011 at 20:23

No offence to the ST owners, but I would go for the Z4 all day regardless of fuel consumption differences.

[TW]Fox · 27 Apr 2011 at 20:25

Vanquished007 said:
No offence to the ST owners, but I would go for the Z4 all day regardless of fuel consumption differences.

I'm not really sure I fully understand why the cars are being compared.

Surely you either want a 5 door hatchback or you want a 2 seater convertible?

widdyst · 27 Apr 2011 at 21:43

[TW]Fox;19001621 said:
I'm not really sure I fully understand why the cars are being compared.

Surely you either want a 5 door hatchback or you want a 2 seater convertible?

Or a 3 door hatch

FishThrower · 27 Apr 2011 at 21:59

Jono8 said:
How odd.

whats so odd ?

[TW said:
Fox] Whilst fuel economy is always a consideration if 25mpg from an ST is so bad you'll write it off without even test driving it and instead buy a completely different car, I suspect that perhaps neither of them are really that suitable for somebody with your budget...

£12,000 should get me a nice Z4 3.0, which I am planning to spend upto, if not, maybe a bit more.

[TW]Fox · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:00

You miss my point.

You seem excessively hung up about one particular variable cost associated with motoring - whilst seemingly ignoring other factors.

Sneaky Peaky · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:14

As Fox says, what are your other criteria ?

plus all other running costs bar petrol are inevitably going to be more for the Z4 so if ongoing expense is a factor why only consider fuel ?

FishThrower · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:15

[TW]Fox;19001621 said:
I'm not really sure I fully understand why the cars are being compared.

Surely you either want a 5 door hatchback or you want a 2 seater convertible?

I only drive by myself, or sometimes with one passenger. I have always liked Z4s as I think there a good looking car, same goes for the ST.

I am after the most fun car to drive with a nice interior, with fuel economy in mind. The 172 I have isnt a real sports car, but its the most fun iv had, and maybe the ST would be up there in the "fun factor" , but with no performance benefit and more petrol usage, I have decided to go with the Z4 (and being pursaded by my work colleague!).

[TW]Fox · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:15

I think the Z4 is a better car personally - and the roof comes down, which adds a whole new dynamic.

FishThrower · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:17

Sneaky Peaky said:
As Fox says, what are your other criteria ?

plus all other running costs bar petrol are inevitably going to be more for the Z4 so if ongoing expense is a factor why only consider fuel ?

Fuel is the only thng that is going to increase in price when the months \ years go by. I dont want to be paying 80 quid to fill up a tank in the next couple of years (if it ever comes to that)

Spuderoony · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:19

Brother's ST averages 26mpg, though he does 50/60 miles most days.

My Z4 averages 30/31, town driving during the week, longer runs at weekends.

Spuderoony · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:20

FishThrower said:
Fuel is the only thng that is going to increase in price when the months \ years go by. I dont want to be paying 80 quid to fill up a tank in the next couple of years (if it ever comes to that)

Then you'll be disappointed. The Z4's tank is 55 litres - at 1.35 a litre that comes out at £74.25 already. Think the ST's is similar/the same too.

Sneaky Peaky · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:21

FishThrower said:
Fuel is the only thng that is going to increase in price when the months \ years go by. I dont want to be paying 80 quid to fill up a tank in the next couple of years (if it ever comes to that)

Don't get me wrong, I love the Z4, was seriously considering a Z4C myself at one point but what I'm saying is that it *will cost you considerably more to run over 2 years than the ST including fuel costs imo

FishThrower · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:25

Spuderoony said:
Then you'll be disappointed. The Z4's tank is 55 litres - at 1.35 a litre that comes out at £74.25 already. Think the ST's is similar/the same too.

yes, but the ST would churn through that amount quicker. 74 quid? my 172 petrol tank is 50 litres and thats around £55 to fill up, when the petrol light is on.

[TW]Fox · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:27

FishThrower said:
Fuel is the only thng that is going to increase in price when the months \ years go by. I dont want to be paying 80 quid to fill up a tank in the next couple of years (if it ever comes to that)

Then buy another car, becuase it doesnt sound like this type of car fits with whatever you want to be spending per month. Firstly petrol is not the only thing that increases in price and secondly it's already £80 for a tank pretty much!

FishThrower said:
yes, but the ST would churn through that amount quicker. 74 quid? my 172 petrol tank is 50 litres and thats around £55 to fill up, when the petrol light is on.

Errr maths fail?

50 litres = 50 * £1.35 a litre = £67?

If you are this worried about an 80 quid fillup then what exactly do you think of the £550 bill to replace all 4 tyres on a Z4? Or the £1000 for a new roof motor?

FishThrower · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:28

Sneaky Peaky said:
Don't get me wrong, I love the Z4, was seriously considering a Z4C myself at one point but what I'm saying is that it *will cost you considerably more to run over 2 years than the ST including fuel costs imo

Thanks, I understand that the servicing is more expensive, I will have to look at spare part costs and belt changes before I buy one. thanks for the help.

Sneaky Peaky · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:32

Need Fox here but servicing is still only one cost, you really need to consider all the running costs if ongoing expense is a main consideration..

What about consumables like Tyres, discs, pads etc as well as if anything does go wrong it will be a heap more expensive to fix.

Maybe you need to do some research into the total cost of ownership before you decide, just saying..

Good luck though mate

FishThrower · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:39

[TW]Fox;19002901 said:
Then buy another car, becuase it doesnt sound like this type of car fits with whatever you want to be spending per month. Firstly petrol is not the only thing that increases in price and secondly it's already £80 for a tank pretty much!

Errr maths fail?

50 litres = 50 * £1.35 a litre = £67?

If you are this worried about an 80 quid fillup then what exactly do you think of the £550 bill to replace all 4 tyres on a Z4? Or the £1000 for a new roof motor?

are you a school teacher? or have you always been patronising ? or are you one of them forum nazis that just loves to start arguments? :-)

Im paying £110 per tyre for my 172, £550 for a set of tyres for the Z4 are a cheaper than I thought

Regarding the fuel... I said it costs around 55 quid to fill up when the PETROL LIGHT is on, meaning theres still fuel left in the tank. Do people really let their tank run bone dry?

Fuel costs is normally the main reason why people sell performance cars after realising how much petrol it drinks, I know somebody who was on a decent wage who had a M3, sold it after three months due to him filling it up every three days, he spent nothing else on it then.

I understand that roof motors are expensive, much cheaper than the Boxter ones though!

Sneaky Peaky · 27 Apr 2011 at 22:47

How many miles a year do you do ?

alx · 28 Apr 2011 at 00:28

FishThrower said:
are you a school teacher? or have you always been patronising ? or are you one of them forum nazis that just loves to start arguments?

Im paying £110 per tyre for my 172, £550 for a set of tyres for the Z4 are a cheaper than I thought

Regarding the fuel... I said it costs around 55 quid to fill up when the PETROL LIGHT is on, meaning theres still fuel left in the tank. Do people really let their tank run bone dry?

Fuel costs is normally the main reason why people sell performance cars after realising how much petrol it drinks, I know somebody who was on a decent wage who had a M3, sold it after three months due to him filling it up every three days, he spent nothing else on it then.

I understand that roof motors are expensive, much cheaper than the Boxter ones though!

Fair enough if over years of owning a performance car the petrol price increases to a point where it become uneconomical to run, but 3 months?? That just sounds like someone didn't bother to find out about the realistic fuel consumption figures before buying....

Jono8 · 28 Apr 2011 at 00:43

FishThrower said:
whats so odd ?

As has been said. They are very different cars and it seems odd that your main comparison, in cost terms, is fuel consumption.

How many miles a year do you do? If it is a lot then i could understand, but if not, then you are looking at probably a 15% difference in fuel economy between the two on average.

If you only need two seats and don't mind BMW parts and servicing costs e.t.c then i would probably go for the Z4 as well mind

I would like the mpg to be more in the ST, but to be honest, i only do 7000miles a year so it isnt a monumental amount of extra money over other cars in its class. I don't know why people make such a huge deal out of it to be honest. The ST is only, at most probably 5mpg down compared to other cars in its class. (Not the case for people who do above average miles though obviously)