[z335is]

Originally Posted by MTHRAR

Wow, some of the M3/M4 guys are insufferable. Can't everyone just enjoy their cars? I love the M3/4, but I didn't want to spend $15K-$20K more just to say that I'm better than someone else because I have twin turbos, better leather, M Mirrors etc etc. For me, the M2 hit the sweet spot with price/performance/aesthetics. I know it won't be as fast as an M3/4, but people do have high expectations of the power numbers. For me, as long as it's fun, I don't give a rats ass about "fictitious numbers".

Enjoy your cars, whatever you have people!!!

I love the M2 and respect it for what it is. But I think it's the other way around, as there are a bunch of M2 guys who constantly find the the need to say how the M2 is better than the M3/M4.

[OrangeCrush]

Originally Posted by z335is

I love the M2 and respect it for what it is. But I think it's the other way around, as there are a bunch of M2 guys who constantly find the the need to say how the M2 is better than the M3/M4.

Hmmmmm....let's see. M2 forum. Thread about M2 dyno. Bunch of M4 guys come in to rub the low dyno number (even though something clearly went wrong here) in the faces of M2 owners. Sound about right?

[jtodd_fl]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrush

Hmmmmm....let's see. M2 forum. Thread about M2 dyno. Bunch of M4 guys come in to rub the low dyno number (even though something clearly went wrong here) in the faces of M2 owners. Sound about right?

[zenmaster]

BTW, FWIW the BMW graph was obviously not produced from an actual test run, but it does indicate where the HP and torque peaks would be. There should be a positive slope until around 5500 RPM and an approx hold until 6500 RPM.

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Your expectactation of a different turbo was completely baseless... same as the 1M which has the exact same thing as a standard N54.

Nothing in the motor changed that would indicate different power numbers...

compression nope
red line nope
turbo nope

Expectation? What are you talking about?

I'm on the record as suspecting it might be the same turbo. We'll have to see what the tuners get to find out what is try and what isn't.

That being said, I'm not sure you can call it baseless that people thought it MIGHT have a bigger snail.

Based on the published HP number, that would be pushing the stock N55 turbo pretty hard for OEM design criteria, especially if they under rated it like they had all of their other recent offerings.

Then we see that they give it an all new block, pistons, etc. Not too far a stretch to think the turbo might also be upgraded.

And the kicker?

There's the small fact that the turbo has a different part number vs. the regular N55. So...yeah...if you're being fair, that's not exactly baseless.

The 1M is a completely different animal. That motor had MUCH more headroom in it on the stock turbos. 500+. Hence, they PULLED that engine out of the regular cars. Not at all the same situation.

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by PrematureApex

Expectation? What are you talking about?

I'm on the record as suspecting it might be the same turbo. We'll have to see what the tuners get to find out what is try and what isn't.

That being said, based on the published HP number, that would be pushing the stock N55 snail pretty hard for OEM design criteria, especially if they under rated it like they had all of their other recent offerings, so not entirely baseless.

Then there's the FACT that it had a different part number...so...yeah...hardly baseless.

The 1M is a completely different animal. That motor had MUCH more headroom in it on the stock turbos. 500+. Hence, they PULLED that engine out of the regular cars. Hardly the same situation...make that...not even close.

They give it an all new block, pistons, etc. Totally baseless that the turbo, which carries a different part number, might also be a bit bigger.

Im with you on the turbo being upgraded on the M2 - and indeed with a new unique part number one would think would bring the certainty of that to something around 98.9 percent ...

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by zenmaster

BTW, FWIW the BMW graph was obviously not produced from an actual test run, but it does indicate where the HP and torque peaks would be. There should be a positive slope until around 5500 RPM and an approx hold until 6500 RPM.

What do you mean by that ? That BMW pulled the chart out of their a$$ ?

A lot of people fail to realize that BMW official ratings are done in steady state, where the engine is left to stabilize for a while at each RPM point before the readings are taken. This is the best way to obtain accurate and repeatable results, but can show quite different numbers than running an engine in transient (while accelerating). BTW, this is in accordance with both the EU and SAE standards.

[Adem1534]

Originally Posted by DrtyJrze

Shhh... Let them find out IRL when they challenge the local M3/4 and get smoked. Or go to a proper track.

Ultimately you get what you pay for, especially when the two cars are made by the same company (M2=little sister)

Gtfo with your elitist bullshit.

[zenmaster]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

What do you mean by that ? That BMW pulled the chart out of their a$$ ?

HP=(torque*RPM)/5252 regardless of dyno type (engine or chassis).

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by zenmaster

HP=(torque*RPM)/5252 regardless of dyno type (engine or chassis).

Only true for SAE hp in imperial units.

Change the units and the above formula is invalid.

For instance, in metric units the formula is Power (kW) = Torque (N.m) x Speed (RPM) / 9549.3

[zenmaster]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Only true for SAE hp in imperial units.

Change the units and the above formula is invalid.

For instance, in metric units the formula is Power (kW) = Torque (N.m) x Speed (RPM) / 9.5488

Yes that is correct, I just read (Nm x rpm)/9543 somewhere. Should be producing around 270HP at 3800-3900 RPM.

[FrankiE90]

N55 tuned m2.
Still an n55 - in a petite chassis
I would think an m235 would be more of a savings w/o compromise to power - speaking in terms of n55.
I would pay premium for an s55 - it's just different power delivery.

Those dyno numbers seem to be on par w the n55.

[zenmaster]

Originally Posted by FrankiE90

N55 tuned m2.
Still an n55 - in a petite chassis
I would think an m235 would be more of a savings w/o compromise to power - speaking in terms of n55.
I would pay premium for an s55 - it's just different power delivery.

Those dyno numbers seem to be on par w the n55.

It's hard to gauge what the numbers mean because that dyno is not nearly as popular as the familiar dynojet and tends to read like 18% lower.

[rallybull]

Originally Posted by 3tekcorps

Who cares about 1 dyno run. It's keeping up with really fast cars on the track. The 0-60 time is great. People love to post controversial crap on youtube just to get the clicks. Why on earth would you run the car on that gas to do a dyno test?

Because there are some small parts of the world like California and Arizona where 91 is the best you can get on a regular basis. So to them 91 is "normal". Sad but true.

[DrtyJrze]

......

[DrtyJrze]

Originally Posted by Adem1534

Gtfo with your elitist bullshit.

Hmmm, not quite sure what part of my post was "elitist"...

However I do think it's ironic that someone on a BMW forum who purchased an M2 calls others elitist

Enjoy your brand new 2016 BMW M2 in good health Mother Theresa!

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by zenmaster

Yes that is correct, I just read (Nm x rpm)/9543 somewhere. Should be producing around 270HP at 3800-3900 RPM.

Don't confuse kW and hp.

1hp SAE = 0.7457kW

[Jaymax85]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrush

It's a good thing M cars are all about straight line speed. It shouldn't bother you then that the M2 has better times than the M4 on most of the tracks tested.

right, it doesn't, as the m4 is severely undertired from the factory and has issues putting power down. Slap some tires worth their weight and watch the what happens.

THe m2 is nice but there is some hardcore penis envy against the m4..

[Jaymax85]

Originally Posted by Adem1534

Gtfo with your elitist bullshit.

lol maybe u should get ur car first before talking.. just saying

[Jaymax85]

Originally Posted by pruettfan

I was speaking to a Motortrend test, I have no doubt that the M4 is faster to 100 or 130. Perhaps you should read my post again. I am not debating the speed of the M4 but that the dyno results listed by the OP not making sense. Go to Motortrend on demand and watch the video, they list the track times and their test results, they are what they are.

i spoke about you speculating straight line speed equivalence from a 0-60 time. That is just plain incorrect. Maybe you need to reread my post. thanks.

[M3816]

Originally Posted by zenmaster

Utterly meaningless w/out other car's results on that same dyno with same conditions.

I will post a proper review of the car soon. It did 331 whp 326wtq 3 passes back to back and 360whp 336 wtq after custom ecu tune. The car was not removed off the dyno and it was the same gas and operator. I have a few mods done already too may be I will do a journal instead.



ps the car factory exhaust note owns the s55 stock exhaust by a mile!

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by zenmaster

Yes that is correct, I just read (Nm x rpm)/9543 somewhere. Should be producing around 270HP at 3800-3900 RPM.

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Don't confuse kW and hp.

1hp SAE = 0.7457kW

The BMW graph shows 500Nm (in overboost mode) @ 3800rpm

(500x3800)/9543=199kW which is 270hp

And, lo and behold, the BMW graph shows 200kW at 3800rpm...