[135iDCT]

     Featured on BIMMERPOST.com

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ic-test-review

Standing ¼-mile: 12.5 sec @ 113 mph


C/D TEST RESULTS:

Zero to 60 mph: 4.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.6 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 18.3 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 28.6 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.4 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.4 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.5 sec @ 113 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 163 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 155 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.99 g

FUEL ECONOMY:

EPA city/highway driving: 20/27 mpg
C/D observed: 19 mpg



Computer Is Quicker
Speed, for example. As is often the case with modern cars, the self-shifting M2 is quicker than its manual-shift sibling. An M2 equipped with the dual-clutch automatic transmission leads the way to 60 mph and through the quarter-mile by a significant 0.2 second. When you’re running in Corvette territory—4.0 seconds to 60 mph, 12.5 at 113 mph in the quarter-mile—two-tenths is significant. The auto-to-stick gap is more than a car length at 60 mph, stretching to more than two car lengths by the end of the quarter-mile.

The auto ’box wins against the clock because of a few inherent advantages. A computer is better than a human at managing launch traction, and the dual-clutch unit upshifts without interrupting power delivery. During our 30-to-50-mph and 50-to-70-mph passing tests, the gap is significantly larger (and not directly comparable) because the automatic nimbly grabs a shorter ratio while our procedure dictates to leave the stick in top gear.

The second benefit is potentially better fuel economy, rooted in the fact that the DCT has seven forward ratios versus six in the M2’s manual gearbox. While gears one through six are essentially the same, the automatic has a 47-percent wider overall ratio spread attributable to its 0.67:1 seventh gear. This yields an additional 2 mpg, or 10 percent, in the EPA-combined mileage rating. Given the 19 mpg we logged during 1000 miles of mainly local driving, that 2 mpg, again, is nothing to sneeze at. It’s worth noting, however, that we averaged 20 mpg in the manual-equipped M2 we tested in California in February.

Money Matters
BMW’s dual-clutch automatic does cost an extra $2900 in the M2, which starts at $52,695 in base form. With or without the automatic, an M2 is a complete driver’s package with a zesty 365-hp 3.0-liter turbocharged inline-six, a suspension tuned to please the most demanding wannabe racer, and some of the best brakes money can buy—opposed-piston calipers gripping huge vented and cross-drilled rotors. The only other embellishments on our test car were $550 for Long Beach Blue Metallic paint and a $1250 Executive package containing a heated steering wheel, a rearview camera, Park Distance Control (alarms to tell you that you’re about to smack something at the rear), and Active Driving Assistant (cameras to help you stay in your lane and avoid colliding with a pedestrian or the car ahead). With red-and-blue M-department stitching and coarse-weave carbon-fiber trim decorating the door pulls, dash, and console, this is one beautifully attired Bavarian. There’s even a measure of practicality, as the M2’s rear seat is surprisingly comfortable for a coupe, and the backrests split and fold to stretch the 14-cubic-foot trunk’s cargo capacity.

[CosmosMpower]

113 is respectable.

[sdshah]

If they kept weight down these numbers would have been way better.

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by CosmosMpower

113 is respectable.

Yay

now people can stop quoting that errant figure of 106. -you know .. All the BMW drag racers out there that were all apoplectic...

For the rest of us bimwads 0.99g of grip.... That's impressive

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by sdshah

If they kept weight down these numbers would have been way better.

Thank you , Captain Obvious ...

[phoenixbmwlife]

Why is the rolling start 5-60mph at 4.4 seconds? Shouldn't it be faster than the 0-60mph time of 4.0 seconds?

[Driver37]

Daily driving with the DCT here in Atlanta is a definite win for me.

But that's what the e30 is for. I enjoy the engaged feeling of older manuals than the numbness of the new BMWs (F30/80 etc.)

But that's just my .02

[goj]

Originally Posted by sdshah

If they kept weight down these numbers would have been way better.

And to close to the M4..

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by PhoenixWolf

Why is the rolling start 5-60mph at 4.4 seconds? Shouldn't it be faster than the 0-60mph time of 4.0 seconds?

Perhaps they used launch control ?

[gmzanatta]

Originally Posted by goj

And to close to the M4..

This.

They have to have some sort of performance "gap" between the baby and the middle child.

[gtr]

Originally Posted by PhoenixWolf

Why is the rolling start 5-60mph at 4.4 seconds? Shouldn't it be faster than the 0-60mph time of 4.0 seconds?

0-60 is always faster. High RPM launch and turbo take a few clicks to get moving.

[spuntyb]

Originally Posted by PhoenixWolf

Why is the rolling start 5-60mph at 4.4 seconds? Shouldn't it be faster than the 0-60mph time of 4.0 seconds?

5-60 will always be slower. From a stop, you can break traction and start, essentially, at any RPM. From a roll, you're already in gear and subject to the engine's actual limitations.

http://jalopnik.com/porsche-918-prov...hit-1558177494

[Mspired]

E9x M3 territory

[zenmaster]

Originally Posted by PhoenixWolf

Why is the rolling start 5-60mph at 4.4 seconds? Shouldn't it be faster than the 0-60mph time of 4.0 seconds?

As others have noted, 5-60 rolling start will always be slower than 0-60. Main reason is availability of torque when engine is basically idle.
Interesting article, but don't necessarily agree that 5-60 is a better metric:
http://insideevs.com/the-rolling-start-a-better-ev-performance-metric/

[gmzanatta]

Originally Posted by Mspired

E9x M3 territory

Indeed! I feel like the M2 is the spiritual successor to all the things BMW did right before the new M's....

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by Mspired

E9x M3 territory

I was going to say the same thing. Those numbers are either similar or awfully close to the e9x M3.

[Total madness]

Now who will chart this against m240i xdrive specs?

[gmzanatta]

Originally Posted by Total madness

Now who will chart this against m240i xdrive specs?

Someone will soon enough. I'm very interested in the outcome. Won't change my mind but I think it will move a lot of folks from M2 to M240i, especially in markets where the demand for xDrive is high.

[Die ///M Rakete]

Mid 12 second car. What used to be right smack in super-car territory. Incredible

[kdog26372]

Originally Posted by PhoenixWolf

Why is the rolling start 5-60mph at 4.4 seconds? Shouldn't it be faster than the 0-60mph time of 4.0 seconds?

Car and Driver uses a 1 foot rollout for 0-60 where they don't start the watch until the car has traveled this distance. This shaves about .3 seconds off the actual 0-60; so in reality 0-60 was probably 4.3 seconds not 4 flat. As others have stated the 0-60 is also slightly better as a result of revving engine from a stop which isn't possible when already moving 5 mph.

That said 113 mph is solid for a stock car in the quarter. They got 12.9 @109 out of the M235i with automatic and 4.3 to 60. So pretty much in line with the extra 35 lb-ft of torque in the M2 along with the better DCT and slight weight reduction.

[m34m]

Originally Posted by sdshah

If they kept weight down these numbers would have been way better.

This. The only thing that pisses me off about this car the inattention to weight. If a 911 can be 3000lbs so can a peewee 2 series.

[Mako]

Originally Posted by Mspired

E9x M3 territory

Actually that's F80 territory!

5-60 in 4.4 seconds is what the M3/M4 DCT was tested at!

so at a stop light the M2 will be a dead on tie with the M3 (all things being equal), and sounds like on a track they will be too
only time the M3/M4 will win is 0-100+

to me this is another reason its time for the M3 to go AWD and get to that 500HP mark, leave the RWD to the M2/M2GC (TBD)