# 225 Coupe Vs. BMW 330ci vs. nissan 350z



## djtimodj (Aug 10, 2005)

*which one?*​
350z1419.44%330ci1013.89%225 coupe4866.67%


----------



## djtimodj (Aug 10, 2005)

Hi guys looking into one of the following cars to buy soon, i have looked at most of the costs and performance stats for the three cars.

Any ideas how well a remaped 225 would stand up againsed a 350z?

14.7 0-100mph book figue for the 350z, 16.7 book figure for stock 225 coupe.

also if any of you guy had to choose which one and why ??

i know this will be a biased view but i just carnt decide!!!!!

Thanks for you veiws Tim.


----------



## TTej (Sep 10, 2003)

Best Handling- 350Z

Best Looking- TT

Best comfort- 330ci

Problem i found with the 330ci is that it was too thirtsy for what you get in return. I dont mind cars drinking petrol but there was not enough power or fun to justify the expense with the BMW. It does sound good. lol

I had this question and i picked the TT. after all i didnt like the thirsty BM and the other one, well its a Datsun.


----------



## scott-tt225 (Jul 9, 2006)

HI.

I have a TT QS (240BHp). I had a 225 Before that.

My mum had a 2005 BMW 330 CI Sport. It was pants. Dont get me wrong, good looking car, just slow compared with my 225 in standard form.

I cannot comment on a 350z, I have never owned one. A friend has one, imo the quality is not there!

What you must remember is that if you buy a 225, it will be a 265 Bhp car in a very short time.

It would seem that you are into going quickly, I would suggest a remapped 225 or have you looked at the Quattro Sport?

There is a QS in the for sale section, under porsche trade bid!


----------



## scott-tt225 (Jul 9, 2006)

Does the 350 z really handle better????

What about in the wet? Surely Quattro is going to dominate??


----------



## djtimodj (Aug 10, 2005)

The QS is out of my price range still. the 350 is gonna hurt me with fuel costs, the real question is between the 330ci and 225 C.

in standard form the book figs for both the 330ci and 225 are very similar. both in the 16 sec range 0-100mph bot 6.5 ish to 60mph.

any one know what a remaped figs would be ?

and aslo whats the real world performance like ??

eg, 3 gear overtaking ??

Thanks Tim.


----------



## rico (Sep 25, 2006)

dare i say the word diesel?? i currently have a 225 coupe, but fuel costs are starting to cripple me, compared to my diesel 1.9vrs i had before. I would look at post 2003 330cd, loads of power and torque and remap well. Better ingear performance than the 330ci as standard and would whoop it when chipped, would also beat the 225 i would imagine.

Rico


----------



## djtimodj (Aug 10, 2005)

i have looked at the diesel but just could not see my self driving an oil burner !! lol, i love engine nosie and a diesel sound crap!


----------



## scott-tt225 (Jul 9, 2006)

I also love diesel.

The old man has a Audi 3.0Tdi and its great.

The TT feels much quicker than the 330 and handles loads better. The TT is turbo, and pulls very well in 3rd gear. The 330 only does about 16-20 mpg also......

I think remapped TT is around 5.5 0-60??? Think that is right? Sure the QS standard is 5.7????


----------



## djtimodj (Aug 10, 2005)

the 330ci book fig for fuel consumtion is 30mpg combined? where do you get the 16-20 mpg from ?? i assume this is when being driven hard??


----------



## l3ttx (Oct 15, 2006)

I have a 225 Coupe standard, and my mate has a 330Ci Convertable. hes running at <20mpg and the TT runs around 25mpg.

Off the lights mines alot quicker wet and dry.

40 to 60 Mines still quicker.

The stright six does sound nice, but with a new exhust mine would sound better.

so what i'am saying is get the TT.


----------



## djtimodj (Aug 10, 2005)

the vert 330 is slower 0-60 then the coupe but i think the stock 225 would still be faster than the coupe 330ci. one of the mainthings that puts me off the tt is the cabin size, im 6 2'' and 230lbs so i dont want to feel squashed into it if you get me. i have sat in a few to see what the head room was like and there is head room. the driving position is good but whats is like to live with ??

Thinking of driving to the nurburgring around 700miles later this year and wanted to find out what its like over long distance ??

Thankd for all the replys guys!

Tim.


----------



## scott-tt225 (Jul 9, 2006)

I dont care what the brochure says, you will not get 30mpg from the 330 BMW.

Around town, average was 17mpg. On a run to Scotland the average was 24 mpg.

The car was not driven that hard, my mum drove it 90% of the time. It was always run on good fuel. We took the fuel consumption up with BMW on a number of occasions, that is normal aparently!

The RS4 that she now has is better on fuel.

My TT is great on fuel.

Around town I get 28-29mpg. On a run, it is much better. I just drove to Newaslte and back for new year, doing around 85 all the way. Average fuel consumption was 37mpg.

In all honesty, if I give it some welly, the figures soon go down, but good economy can be achieved?


----------



## t5ttr (Dec 6, 2006)

Scott how do you drive you TT? 37 mpg i didn't think that was possible! I can't get much more than 28 mpg and that is driving with a feather right foot , whats your secret super eco remap?


----------



## djtimodj (Aug 10, 2005)

the fuel economy must be shite on the 330ci then coz my dad has an e46 m3 and he gets 22mpg round town and 30.3mpg on a 200mile run!!

any know what 0-100 fig may be ??

Thanks Tim.


----------



## TThriller (Feb 27, 2006)

djtimodj said:


> Any ideas how well a remaped 225 would stand up againsed a 350z?
> 
> .


On the SpeedBall 2006, on one of the Autobahn sections, I was following the organiser's 350Z which was fitted with the aerokit. He was maxed-out at an indicated 150mph when I passed him. My GPS was showing 259kph (160mph). Later he commented on how surprised he was when I "breeezed past" him.

http://www.********.co.uk/ttforumbbs/vi ... l&start=10

For the SpeedBall I had the AmD Re-map, Powerflow exhaust and Wakbox fitted.

Also went up against a 350Z at Santa Pod: I was about 0.3 secs quicker.

http://www.********.co.uk/ttforumbbs/vi ... highlight=

At the time of my runs at Santa Pod, my only "go faster" mod was the the AmD Re-Map.

Dave


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

TTej said:


> Best Handling- 350Z
> 
> Best Looking- TT
> 
> Best comfort- 330ci


But you would say that. All depends on what you want from a car. :wink:

350z - less on road, more feel good factor when driving.
only 2 seats, and interior is not the best lets say.

TT - lots to choose from, cheap and easy to mod. Back seats not usable, in stock form slowest of all three cars. Handling needs tweaking too to match z.

330 - 4 real seats, great engine and sound. lacks tuning scope of the TT, plus the BMW image. lots of toys for you money too.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

350z all the way. Fuel economy is "similar" to the 225. I used to get 26mpg out of mine on motorway trips.

TTs are common as muck, the 350z retains some exclusivity and amongst the drivers (not the polishers) certainly does more than hold its own in terms of reputation.

In anycase, the Z engine takes a supercharger quite neatly, so you really CAN play with the big boys, and leave the TT and the BMW sitting in the weeds.


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

Apologies for the real world view of things, but in the real every day world it rains, especially in North Europe. So when you are at the lights in pouring rain, just damp the clutch and watch the rest of the world in the rear view mirror still trying to put their power down.

Or just watch the supercars on a greasy roundabout treading carefully while you just shout "Go Go Quattro" and zoom by....

Power is nothing without control....


----------



## djtimodj (Aug 10, 2005)

I do really like the 350 but it is at the top of my realistic price range, and its hard to find a nice one with manual tranny and in a good colour? if i had more cash then i could get the leather intiriour and nicer colour. the TT makes more sense due to the lower cost of purchase and i do like the modability of tis car.

also insurance is the lowest of the 3!


----------



## sean.ui (Nov 18, 2006)

I recently bought a 225 TTC - when I was looking around I checked a few different makes/models including the 330ci (00/01), Alfa GT and Porsche Boxster. The Boxster was the first to go as for the money I had to spend I could only get a '98 car. The Alfa was next to drop purely due to fear of the unkown (lovely looking car and lovely to drive).

It came down to a straight shoot out between the 330ci and the 225TTC and it only took 1 drive in each to make up my mind - if you're looking for comfortable (slightly boring) cruiser with space for 2 in the back then the BM is your car. But if you're looking for something more exciting (from an overall perspective) then the TT is your car -

I found the 330ci handled well but was boring to drive and felt a lot slower than the TT (although it probably wasn't). Also I found the interior to be very boring and not even close to the TT in terms of design.

In terms of comparison with the 350z - I've a friend who recently bought one and to be fair the 350z it is a cracking car - handles really well and when pushing hard is a better car to drive. Lovely sound of the engine too. But for me the TT wins in other areas such as image, outright grip and traction as well as looks and interior design, not to mention tunability.

Horses for courses really when comparing cars and really comes down to personal preference and what you're looking for....


----------



## djtimodj (Aug 10, 2005)

Thanks for the replys guys, its great to get other ppls veiw on the subject as i have not got any thing to compair to! i only have what reviews and books and the net says about the cars.

i have bin out in a 225 TTR and i think its the way the turbo delivers the power that makes it seem faster than it is!

Which in my eyes is better than a car that is fast but you do not feel like you going fast.

I have read up on remaps and i think the only way i will no what the difference is like untill i drive a remaped TT.

I find it hard to beleave how the extra 40 ish HP gives so much more performance.

does any one one how much more Torque the remap produces?? this is where the seat of you pants dyno works!

Thanks tim.


----------



## scott-tt225 (Jul 9, 2006)

HI.

With ref to a previous post asking about fuel consumption.

Over the new year I went to Newcastle, it was a 430 mile round trip for me.

Before I went I brimmed the tank, then when I got back I brimmed it again and the tank was full some 54 litres later.

53 litres = 11.7 gallons.

430 miles divided by 11.7 gallons = 36.8 MPG.

I had to do this calculation as I wsa amazed how economical my car was on this journey. The DIS worked out 37 MPG, but I didnt believe it.

I have an AmD map on the car. WhenI bought it in September it was standard, it was not this economical. 
I drive to Bristol every weekend to visit my GF, I have found that it is much better on fuel after the remap, if I do 85, I get better fuel economy than 75. Going over 90 is disasterous for the economy.

My Dad also has and Audi, A6 remapped by AmD and has noticed much better fuel economy since the re-map. I have been told this is due to the increased torque, the engine does not have to work so hard.


----------



## sean.ui (Nov 18, 2006)

djtimodj said:


> I find it hard to beleave how the extra 40 ish HP gives so much more performance.
> 
> does any one one how much more Torque the remap produces?? this is where the seat of you pants dyno works!
> 
> Thanks tim.


I haven't remapped my 225 yet but my old golf gti was remapped - 150bhp - 190bhp & 155ft/lb to 210ft/lb - the difference was like night and day. I was both amazed and scared the first time I drove the car - I imagine a remapped 225 TT will give the same improvement/feeling.


----------



## MK1-TT (Nov 18, 2006)

LOL just read through the whole thread looking at the comments.

Cast my vote and then went to see what the results were 

Guess which ones winning! I should have known :lol:

Wonder if he has posted the same poll on the Datsun and BMW forums?

(all nice cars by the way!)


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

This is an easy on to answer my friend! all you have to do is ask yourself 3 questions.

1. are you taking the car racing or to track days???

2. which car do you prefer the looks of

3. stop going on about bloody fuel consumption man, after you drive your chosen car the last thing your gonna be thinking about is oooh wish i bought the diesel.... could have saved around Â£5 on the last tank :wink: .

to sum it up, all three are good looking cars that have good points..... the nissan has an exclusivity about it..... the audi tt is an amazing car to sit in and drive and easy to mod.... the bmw looks well nice :roll:


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

oh and may i add the TT world is the best around with THE best forum and owners club as youve probably noticed. 8)


----------



## maxdude (Oct 8, 2006)

I was desperate for the zed until the wife told me I couldn't as you cant deactivate the passenger airbag, to carry the nipper. Also test drove the RX8 but overall the TT is superior and am delighted I now have one. So is the wife; everyones happy!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

350z with a subtle kit and deep dish wheels looks awesome

and then drop a supercharger in and your laughing


----------



## suby786 (Jan 2, 2007)

ive had the chance to drive the 330ci alot... and i have to say i have fallen in love with them since. Its just the comfort, the power... even though the 225 TT seems faster.. but the 330 does drink. but the sound of it is to die for..

in terms of economy id have to choose the 225 TT... since ive got behind the wheel, the power delivery when the turbo kicks in is VERY NICE... and in that respect, you can drive econo,mmically before the turbo kicks in so you can CHOOSE to be economic... similar to the 330ci but the power is always there... and in a way TEMPS you to flick the power switch behind the accelerater pedal..

comfort... gott be the 330, i normally HATE automatics, always thort its lazy way of driving but since i had the 330ci... i love bmw auto's... its so effortless...  and hey you can get smg gearbox in the 330ci... niceee


----------



## Hev (Feb 26, 2005)

A bit of personal experience of the Zed...............
 the burble of the exhaust is brill
 looks good from the outside
 plenty luggage room inside

:? quality of the interior is rubbish
:? the doors are really wide - parking spaces are a pain in the ....
:? I had problems with the paint finish on the front bumper - it started to bubble

Just something to add in for ya.

Hev x


----------



## SpeadyReady (Dec 1, 2006)

Hi

Hev has summed it up perfectly.

I owned a 350Z for 6 months last summer and its a fantastic car, with a few faults as Hev says.
If I could have the exterior and performance with the interior off the TT you'd have a perfect car.
The 350Z is a beast, while the TT is more refined and the 4 wheel drive keeps you well within the limits off safe driving, this can't be said for the Z.

After 6 months of the Z I'd had enought off the hard ride and the fantasic exhaust sound was just to much on long rides.

The TT's more managable but I have to say servicing costs seem higher than Nissan so far.

If you want a head turner get the 350Z with Nismo pack.
If you want a head turner with some ellements off practicality the TT is the better option.
I had my fun and now love the TT
Good luck with your decission


----------



## LetMeFly (Dec 10, 2006)

The TT should give you enough head room - I'm 194 cm driving a TTR without any problems...the TTC has a one or two cm less head room but still np.

Good luck!


----------



## djtimodj (Aug 10, 2005)

i have bin out in a TTR and thought the roof was low at the front ?? may have bin the passener seat ajustment but any one else found this ??

when i say low at the front i dont mean head room but the top of the windscreen?


----------



## robertj (Sep 17, 2006)

when looking for a sports type car it was down to 3 cars for me the TT, 350Z and the porche, tried all 3 and mulled it over for quite a while. The Porche was good not quite what i'd expected not as good as i thought it was going to be, the 350 is fantastic just superb really goes very powerful but over the TT lacked the looks for me especially inside. The TT is a work of art all round with only one flaw, the Wipers are seen form inside, nit picking when all you can find is that.
I got a 225 and have enjoyed some thing with this car I haven't with any others, cleaning and polishing it, now that speaks for itself dont u feel???

bob

(c if this one gets erased)


----------



## djtimodj (Aug 10, 2005)

Hi guys, i have now made the decision todrop the 330ci from the list! its down to the 350 or TT now ?? its such a hard decision !! any more help to sway me to the TT ??

Come on guys im pulling my hair out here!! haha

thanks Tim.


----------



## Hev (Feb 26, 2005)

djtimodj said:


> i have bin out in a TTR and thought the roof was low at the front ?? may have bin the passener seat ajustment but any one else found this ??
> 
> when i say low at the front i dont mean head room but the top of the windscreen?


Being a Roadster owner........ yes, the roof does come down quite far at the front............ a coupe definately has more windscreen! On the otherhand, you can't beat going topless in both summer and winter 8)

Best bet would be to go to a garage and compare the coupe and roadster side by side.

Hev x


----------



## Black Knight (Jan 16, 2007)

i also made a decidion bewteen those 3 cars... well almost..
first i wanted to get a 330ci, then started thinking about a 350z which i could get a couple of years younger within warranty for the same money. still the bmw is a top quality car, one of the best interiors IMO. 350z feels a bit cheap and seems to be far from a sensible car. a lot more extreme to drive.. and ugly. its plain ugly. it looks like a TT-like coupe shape raped with hyundai/kia styling inspired by renault megane. it doesnt work for me at all. a coupe-like shape is really hard to mess up.. the shape looks beautiful by itself.. but they managed to mess up every little detail, from the door knobs, headlights, stop lights.. a mess..

then i stumbled upon a 3.2 V6 TT DSG a model which i didnt know existed. woohoo.. i dont like turbo cars so the engine choice really made me smile.. then i tried out one with the DSG gearbox and that was it, decision made. on top of all that it has very nice and subtle bumper mods compared to the original TT that i think suit the car great and it should have always been like that. and its in papaya orange, a color that really shows off the cars sexy shape and gives a whole new meaning and look.
also, they put bigger brakes and xenons in the v6 and some other stuff, its a really good car.
its not for tuning i guess.. its too good of a car to be tuned anyway IMO. no need to change anything. perhaps tune the suspension to your liking and wheels perhaps.. but mechanicaly the car is a masterpiece IMO.

anyway.. a 350z would own it when dry.. 350z would probably own a chipped 225 too.. but how much do you really care about that? if you care that much that'd you'd buy a lesser car just because it does a better lap then you might start thinking into amateur circuit racing or something. :!:


----------



## Captain Moonlight (Jan 19, 2007)

3 great looking cars...the BM and The 225 were on my list for what seemed like months....I looked at the stats over and over again but when it came to the crunch I wanted to buy a car thats LOOKS fantastic and FEELS like a quality car, I too have driven the BM and now the TT225 (but dont take delivery til next week ...tick tock) The TT for me felt right and ESPECIALLY for town driving..does MPG bother me? yes..but whadoyado..the BM is thirsty but it wasnt this that put me off....it was a) that I couldnt get a decent facelift model within budget and its a much bigger car to carry around town oh and I just dont know if I could cope with the BM stigma AGAIN. I BRIEFLY looked at the 350z and I agree it looks amazing...and some great reviews but its A NISSAN.! They're just not in the same class as the others.....within a few months I bet my bottom dollar youd be sat in a traffic jam looking at the dashboard thinking mmm its not german quality...deep deep down I already knew what i would buy from my extensive list...you probably also will...the TT is certainly a common site these days (as are BMs) but who cares they are simply a fantastic alround car IMO ....


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

My personal experience of the cars:-

330Ci:-

Performance : Slighly the worst of the three
Handling : Slightly the worst of the three
NVH : The best of the three
Interior : 2nd of the three
Practicality : By far the best of the three
Fun factor : The worst of the three (anodyne)

350Z:-

Performance : The best of the three
Handling : By far the best of the three
NVH : By far the worst of the three ................ gearbox whine and rear wheel road roar are far from acceptable
Interior : By far the worst of the three .................. it's really pants
Practicality : The worst of the three
Fun factor : The best of the three

TT:-

Performance : 2nd of the three
Handling : 2nd of the three
NVH : 2nd of the three
Interior : The best of the three
Practicality : 2nd of the three
Fun factor : 2nd of the three

I chose the TT because of the balance of its overall abilities - I did enjoy driving the 350Z the most (a beast with lots of oversteer on demand!!) but it's chronic NVH, rubbish interior and the fact that I couldn't get a decent driving position finished it off for me. The 330Ci was a nice car ............. and that was it, nothing more, nothing less. The TT has been enjoyable under all conditions but, on the twisties in the dry, will always give second best to a well driven 350Z, chipped or not - but don't even try driving a 350Z in the snow!


----------



## djtimodj (Aug 10, 2005)

thanks for the replys guys!

I may be a noob but what does NVH mean ??

Thanks Tim.


----------



## TThriller (Feb 27, 2006)

djtimodj said:


> thanks for the replys guys!
> 
> I may be a noob but what does NVH mean ??
> 
> Thanks Tim.


Noise Vibration Harshness

Dave


----------

