1997 BMW Z3 Roadster Reviews

1997 BMW Z3 Roadster 1.9 from Australia and New Zealand

Model year1997
Year of manufacture1997
First year of ownership2007
Most recent year of ownership2007
Engine and transmission 1.9 Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.2 / 10
Distance when acquired63000 kilometres
Most recent distance69000 kilometres
Previous carSAAB 900

Summary:

Stunning looking, practical convertible

Faults:

Nothing!

General Comments:

I was in the market for a 2 seater convertible, and I test drove a MGF before buying the Z3. The MGF felt much cheaper in comparison, with cheaper materials and a less solid feel. It also did not feel as quick as the Z3 (although on paper it is quicker - especially in VVC tuned form).

The Z3 feels like a quality package, even though it is a 1997 car, it looks really classy - red leather interior, nice plastics, and a 'solid' feel. You feel safer in the Z3 than in most convertibles.

With the Z3, you have to really rev high to get the most performance, and it feels quick without being fast. It is very easy to spin the rear wheels on quick starts - this is perhaps the reason BMW put the traction control on as standard the following model year.

The car does feel a bit like a normal sporty saloon to drive, but the overall quality, amazing looks and excellent fuel economy make it a really good city car (parking is very easy in such a tiny car).

It makes more sense with the top down - with the top up it seems more noisy with the wind noise getting a bit tiring. A hard top would be a good investment for the winter months. It is perhaps one convertible that appeals equally to men and women. All this and they hold their value well!

Highly recommended - but if you want a pure sports car you may want something else. But this car is an excellent compromise between looks, practicality and economy.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 11th November, 2007

1997 BMW Z3 Roadster 1.9 1.9 from North America

Model year1997
Year of manufacture1997
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 1.9 Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 2 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.5 / 10
Distance when acquired2 miles
Most recent distance153000 miles

Summary:

Aw-inspiring drive

Faults:

While racing with a couple of friends on bad roads the radiator started to leak and so had to get it replaced. The rear plastic window is really cheap always cracks. Weather sealer on convertible lets in rain sometimes and it drips on my lap between the glass and the top.

General Comments:

A lot of people looks at a car and if its stylish well mostly likely buys it. People who really know about cars think of something else. Not how the car feels, but how you feel in the car. Is every point thought of. How do you make it corner. Can you push it to the limit to which it is built. Can you hear and feel the engine. The vibrations of the muffler.

Over all... it's a pretty decent car. Made a bit on the cheap side due to it mostly being based on the BMW 318i model.

Excellent car design. Definitly turns heads. Never a major machanical problem has accured. Speedy..fast..attractive.. stylish.. Sexy ..vulgar... and to the point. A true ROADSTER...

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 12th February, 2006

3rd May 2006, 06:40

Dude! ahaha! You say its stylish sexy and all good, and then you go on to say it's "vulgar". Dude.

21st Jul 2009, 19:49

Test drove a 97' (191,000 miles), total dog, I had three mid eighties Dodge Colts (Mitsubishi), 25% more power and crisper handling, maybe they should make them in Germany.

25th Jul 2009, 17:05

191,000 miles even a BMW will be tired. Test drive something with half that mileage.

1997 BMW Z3 Roadster from North America

Year of manufacture1997
First year of ownership1998
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission Manual
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 4 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.6 / 10
Distance when acquired5000 miles
Most recent distance66000 miles
Previous carMazda 626

Summary:

Best car for maintenance and fun that I ever had

Faults:

I cracked the wheel bearing.

General Comments:

The Z3 manual 5 speed is very quick and handles excellently. I love this car and wish it had two more seats for the children.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 3rd June, 2004

1997 BMW Z3 Roadster 1.9 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1997
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 1.9 Automatic
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 0 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 0 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 0 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
4.0 / 10
Distance when acquired14000 miles
Most recent distance38000 miles
Previous carVauxhall Astra

Summary:

Built on a Friday afternoon!

Faults:

Air bag light - 1st week of ownership.

Windscreen cracked down the middle - 2nd week.

Air bag light - 2 months.

Fuel sender broke - 26,000.

Seat belt wiring - 28,000.

2 new back tyres - 28,500.

ABS relay - 32,000.

Dashboard lights out - 31,000.

Steering wheel alignment - 31,500.

Radio display out - 39,000.

Back lights out - 39,000.

Siren on the alarm were faulty - 39,000.

General Comments:

This was my dream car when I bought it, however as you can see from the above - nearly every month I have spent some time in the BMW showroom. It has got beyond a joke. I bought the car 2nd hand FSH 1 owner etc. The car is great and I wish I could paint a different picture but I can't, the car is the worst for reliability ever - every time I turn the car on I dread what will happen next. From what I know of other Z3 drivers, they never have this problem.

Buy one for the sake of saying you've owned it. Otherwise stay well away.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 27th April, 2001

5th Apr 2003, 08:40

Two comments: You mentioned that others owners do not seem to have these problems, yet you are saying to still stay away from purchasing one. Every manufacture has some lemons especially in the initial stages of production. So to all potential buyers - go ahead they ARE reliable. I do not want to use this comment as a personal assault on you, but you gave the performance with the 1.9 auto as being a 10.

The performance of 0-60 in 9.4 seconds is very marginal at best.

27th May 2011, 12:51

All those things are little tiny issues... any car will need new tires, any car is going to need an alignment... An airbag light is a quick fix with a diagnostic hookup... you should be happy that there was no transmission or engine failure... I think you should own a bicycle if you don't want to deal with getting new tires after almost 40000 miles...

Average review marks: 6.6 / 10, based on 6 reviews