[aajami]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

The four Cylinder Which I have talked about since last year is a proposal for an entry 2er which following in the 2002 will resurrect the infamous Tii badge and reverse Turbo designation. Think of entry point for those that can't reach the M2.

That's the new intent of this proposed turbo 4, you mean. Right? Because when you referenced it before it was absolutely under the auspices of being used for the M2.

So is this confirmation that the M2 will be a 6-cylinder car? And what about what @Dackelone hypothesized regarding canceling the M235i when the M2 debuts?

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by IEDEI

who cares what "95% of people" think? Or maybe popular view is your only support......just because you have an M3 and want to negate other M cars like the 1M? nice try......

no need to douche up the conversation....you've made it much dumber.

How can the 1m be more an M car than the M3 when the only M bits it has are FROM the M3?

[SW19]

Originally Posted by kmarei

How can the 1m be more an M car than the M3 when the only M bits it has are FROM the M3?

Exactly,there wouldn't have been a 1M without the M3.The 1M is a great car but there is no reason to start bashing the M3.

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by taibanl

I can't point to the specifics, but IIRC the M brand manager spoke directly to this in interviews the past few years. Simply put, the cost/benefit + emissions requirements favors turbos going forward....

NA will ultimately be classics.

My issue is when half of your model lines use the same exact engine
But yet you charge vastly different amounts for them, based on the badging.
I don't mind when BMW saves money in sharing parts, vw has been doing this for ages
But I do have a problem when BMW charges me a hefty premium for an m3/m4 when the engine is pretty much the n55 with a few tweaks
I could justify paying a premium for the e92 because I was getting a bespoke engine
But when I'm expected to pay close to $20K more for an m3/m4, I can't justify that to myself.

[SW19]

Originally Posted by kmarei

My issue is when half of your model lines use the same exact engine
But yet you charge vastly different amounts for them, based on the badging.
I don't mind when BMW saves money in sharing parts, vw has been doing this for ages
But I do have a problem when BMW charges me a hefty premium for an m3/m4 when the engine is pretty much the n55 with a few tweaks
I could justify paying a premium for the e92 because I was getting a bespoke engine
But when I'm expected to pay close to $20K more for an m3/m4, I can't justify that to myself.

Who cares if the car is a blast to drive.

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by Rupes

I kind of like this idea. If the engine is a fantastic one, why not use it in several platforms and you pick the size of the car?

Because in doing so you lose the enthusiast driver, since you don't make any NA cars for him
I mean if you like turbocharged cars, you have the 335/435 no?
What built the M name were naturally aspirated cars, fact

BMW has been making tons of money with bespoke M engines for decades
Why is it that suddenly, they say it costs too much?
It costs too much because you're being cheap, and you're trying to milk your brand name for every dime it's worth

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by Nantucket

Who cares if the car is a blast to drive.

So was the 335is
But that don't make it an m car

[taibanl]

Originally Posted by kmarei

My issue is when half of your model lines use the same exact engine
But yet you charge vastly different amounts for them, based on the badging.
I don't mind when BMW saves money in sharing parts, vw has been doing this for ages
But I do have a problem when BMW charges me a hefty premium for an m3/m4 when the engine is pretty much the n55 with a few tweaks
I could justify paying a premium for the e92 because I was getting a bespoke engine
But when I'm expected to pay close to $20K more for an m3/m4, I can't justify that to myself.

Can't argue with you there my friend! What's worse is the rebadging of the SAME exact engine (and corresponding tune map) from EU to USA (320d//328d, 530//535d, 730//740d(=530d)). Infuriating!

[Aust350z]

Originally Posted by kmarei

Because in doing so you lose the enthusiast driver, since you don't make any NA cars for him

Thinking about the environment there is no place for a NA car that is performance oriented. It will never pass the increasingly difficult emission targets.

Forced induction in essence is saving the performance car from being redundant. The enthusiast driver needs to move with the times like what BMW and all other car markers need to as well. Ask GM if big, bulky, fuel hungry cars are in high demand anymore...

[Alumac]

Originally Posted by Aust350z

Thinking about the environment there is no place for a NA car that is performance oriented. It will never pass the increasingly difficult emission targets.

Forced induction in essence is saving the performance car from being redundant. The enthusiast driver needs to move with the times like what BMW and all other car markers need to as well. Ask GM if big, bulky, fuel hungry cars are in high demand anymore...

Forced induction is an easy way to generate numbers. Doubt me, look at Porsche's line up that meets emissions targets, while maintaining several naturally aspirated cars. The emissions standards are an average for a brand, not for every car that comes off of the line...

As for GM, they have a naturally aspirated performance car called the 'Corvette'. Meanwhile, their vanilla line up (read BMW 3,5,7) gives them the space to offer such an affront to the environment. How is BMW any different? Unless they're simply hiding behind bullshit standards misunderstood by people like you to offer 'performance' models that differ in name and ground effects alone.

Thus, the current M3,4,5,6.

As an enthusiast, I hope an N55 in the M2 is wrong and we'll see an S65 minus 2 or 4 cylinders, coupled with some weight reduction. But I doubt it.

I expect my dollars going to a car company that doesn't pretend every car off the line needs to meet CAFE.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by aajami

That's the new intent of this proposed turbo 4, you mean. Right? Because when you referenced it before it was absolutely under the auspices of being used for the M2.

So is this confirmation that the M2 will be a 6-cylinder car? And what about what @Dackelone hypothesized regarding canceling the M235i when the M2 debuts?

Exactly. Scott has been saying 4 cyl turbo for the M2 all along. Sounds like he may have been wrong and is now backpedaling by saying he was talking about another model

This is what he said in this thread as late as March 1:

[Seagull]

Originally Posted by Beck

Exactly. Scott has been saying 4 cyl turbo for the M2 all along. Sounds like he may have been wrong and is now backpedaling by saying he was talking about another model

This is what he said in this thread as late as March 1:

Yeah, its a bit lame. He should just say that it is in flux. No biggie. Now he comes across as just pulling our chain. He sets expectations poorly.

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by kmarei

How can the 1m be more an M car than the M3 when the only M bits it has are FROM the M3?

I 100% agree and I'm not kidding!

Imo: What does //M stand for nowadays?
It's just that //M car the last couple of years stands for a fast luxurious tad overweight big Autobahnexpress with a possibility to have fun on a track but where it doesn't shine as much as I wanted in stock form.

[1M=M2 wishfulthinking]

The 1M is not really luxurious, not exactly overweight, not exactly an Autobahnexpress, though I drove it easily to Paris(F) and back lol. And I use the Autobahn sometimes. It can keep up with the rest
It's bouncy, makes some noise(interior) , doesn't have that much passengerspace etc. But it does shine on the track, no overheated brakes and fronttyres(just the rears lol). It does shine in the fun department, whether accellerating or taking a bend. Anyplace anytime. Fun.

Maybe that was not //M 's intention at all.

So no it's not an //M car by definition. Though when //M(otorsport) started in 't 70s with the M1 and M3 E30 etc , //M stood for Motorsports.

I think a more nimble, more agile, less weighing car(any) has more ' motorsport''in it than more or less the same car which is less nimble, less agile because it is heavier.

In short: 1M is not really //M , but it surely is way more sporty than many many other //M cars from let's say the last decade. Having had an E46 M3 and an E90 M3 as well and thinking about the whole package: I'd say the sportiest.

And no the legendary M1 did not rev to 8000rpm , the E30 M3 neither at least not stock

I hope M2 will be a great successor to the 1M. I really do.



Cheers
Robin

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

And no the legendary M1 did not rev to 8000rpm , the E30 M3 neither at least not stock

I hope M2 will be a great successor to the 1M. I really do.



Cheers
Robin

No the E30 M3 did not rev to 8.000 RPM, but it revved much higher than most normal cars on those times, even Ferraris did not rev that high.

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by Levi

No the E30 M3 did not rev to 8.000 RPM, but it revved much higher than most normal cars on those times, even Ferraris did not rev that high.

Yeah, at that time I was watching DTM a lot and preferred the 190e 2.3/2.5 16, I know the E30 M3 is an icon, and I love a nice Cecotto specced one, no worries.

Cheers
Robin

[OverDriven]

Originally Posted by Seagull

Yeah, its a bit lame. He should just say that it is in flux. No biggie. Now he comes across as just pulling our chain. He sets expectations poorly.

To be honest, I don't think Scott has as much of an inside line on BMW developments as you guys think he does. I think that he is pretty far removed from the teams that actually develop these cars and know real inside details.

[Devon K]

Whatever engine the M2 gets, it sure as hell better sound less ricey than the new M4 does in the official BMW video below! I could not believe my ears, the M4 sounds like a Chevy Malibu V6 that has had a fart-can shoved up its rear. Horrible. The C7 and new Mustang GT/GT350 just eat this Bimmer's aural lunch.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by OverDriven

To be honest, I don't think Scott has as much of an inside line on BMW developments as you guys think he does. I think that he is pretty far removed from the teams that actually develop these cars and know real inside details.

Agreed. And he's proven that by being wrong several times in the past. Pretty big thing to be wrong about this time though, especially after being so adamant :

We need to stop hanging on his words as gospel.

[golf_234]

@Devon K.. That does sound pretty bad. 235 for the win.

[ynguldyn]

Originally Posted by Beck

We need to stop hanging on his words as gospel.

If my info is proven to be correct (and I'm pretty sure it will be), and this thread contributes to dismantling or lessening this forum's Cult of Scott, I'll know I did something right.

[IEDEI]

I do think it's pretty unfair to lynch @Scott26 for his misinformation this time. He may not be correct all the time but has still given good information in the past regarding timelines and possible considerations....although it seems he has been mistaken on a few 2-series related things, specifically the M2 and also the 2er Gran Coupe (which won't happen).

But it's all good! Some info is better than none! it's not like you all are paying a subscription or anything!

[ynguldyn]

Originally Posted by IEDEI

But it's all good! Some info is better than none! it's not like you all are paying a subscription or anything!

The nature of this information is such that it only has value when it can be relied on.

The first time my source gives me wrong information, I'll stop posting. It's that simple.