Buying an alpina roadster s. anyone know car #006?

[Kates-13]

Hi,

Looking to buy an alpina s z4 roadster. Any information and things to look out for would be grateful.

Am looking at car number 6. Anyone know any history on it?

Many thanks

[PerryGunn]

This car has always had a couple of mileage anomalies showing in its MOT records

e.g

Code: Select all

Jun 2007	22,872 miles 
Dec 2007	22,556 miles
Dec 2008	35,333 miles
Dec 2009	70,739 miles
Jun 2011	49,158 miles

I'm not saying there's definitely something wrong as they could have been incorrectly entered by the MOT station but that would be unusual - and for it to happen twice...? There are questions that need to be asked

I'd have a careful look at the service history and check the service mileages against the MOT history to see if they create a clearer picture - if it hasn't got a full service history I'd be walking quickly in the opposite direction.

Also, when looking at the MOT history, check and see if the advisories have been attended to.

[Kate-13]

The service history is there but stamped in odd places like the missed a page. Thanks for sharing the mileage anomalies. That’s not good definitely questionable.

[PerryGunn]

If you definitely want an RS be prepared to wait for a good one and, with so few built, be prepared to travel for it. There are a number of them that seem to pop up regularly on dealer's websites or ebay and when you see the same car frequently listed it does tend to ring a few alarm bells.

Keep an eye on the market - there's a thread listing cars that have been up for sale recently

I posted most of the RS-specific pointers in a thread on Z4-forum

The normal E85 Z4 buyers guide is available there as well and the items in that are also applicable to the RS

As with any car of this age, look at condition and history - always a good sign if they've been well looked after and serviced properly, the initial running-in service is sometimes missed but this is regarded as essential for longevity.

[Kate-13]

Thank you. Very much appreciated!! Will definitely be chatting to you. I’m in no hurry to buy one so will happily sit and wait for the right one.

The one at leisure has been there a longtime and guess that is due to the suspicious or lack of service history.

[Bob]

This car has always had a couple of mileage anomalies showing in its MOT records

e.g

Code: Select all

Jun 2007	22,872 miles 
Dec 2007	22,556 miles
Dec 2008	35,333 miles
Dec 2009	70,739 miles
Jun 2011	49,158 miles

I'm not saying there's definitely something wrong as they could have been incorrectly entered by the MOT station but that would be unusual - and for it to happen twice...? There are questions that need to be asked

I'd have a careful look at the service history and check the service mileages against the MOT history to see if they create a clearer picture - if it hasn't got a full service history I'd be walking quickly in the opposite direction.

Also, when looking at the MOT history, check and see if the advisories have been attended to.

That Dec-09 reading looks suspiciously like it's in km's, converted to miles it's 44.2k which is about right. Not so sure about the Dec-07 one though, possibly a typo but needs cross-referencing to service history as you suggest.

[Charles]

That Dec-09 reading looks suspiciously like it's in km's, converted to miles it's 44.2k which is about right. Not so sure about the Dec-07 one though, possibly a typo but needs cross-referencing to service history as you suggest.

Perhaps an even simpler explanation for Dec-09 is that the number 7 is directly below the number 4 on the numerical pad on a standard keyboard and fat finger syndrome may be to blame ...

Can't explain Dec-07 though!

[Bob]

That Dec-09 reading looks suspiciously like it's in km's, converted to miles it's 44.2k which is about right. Not so sure about the Dec-07 one though, possibly a typo but needs cross-referencing to service history as you suggest.

Perhaps an even simpler explanation for Dec-09 is that the number 7 is directly below the number 4 on the numerical pad on a standard keyboard and fat finger syndrome may be to blame ...

Can't explain Dec-07 though!

That is equally plausible