02-25-2019, 01:57 AM | #67 |
S0THPAW
8783
Rep 7,852
Posts |
I personally think the 8-10s faster laptime of M2C vs OG M2 @ Nordschleife had a lot to do with the straights: M2C above 100mph is no contest for OG M2.
Anyway, why am I still in this thread. Though trying to be sensible and seeing it from other's (mostly OG drivers)perspective I just find the 'hate' and the relative contempt towards M2Comp just very very annoying. M2Comp can't do anything right it seems, according to some overhere. And sprint/laptime numbers are only valid(by mostly OG drivers) when M2C isn't really faster than OG M2. So there you have it. And I really still love OG M2, great car! My last post in this thread. Adios Robin |
Appreciate
4
|
02-25-2019, 03:06 AM | #69 |
Colonel
3179
Rep 2,577
Posts |
Robin, I'm not sure why I feel compelled to ever bother commenting again. Anyway, don't take it personally.
Hate is a strong word and I don't remotely hate any car. What happened in this thread isn't really the hatred. It's all about the data accuracy in an instrument test result discussion thread that is interesting. If the words above already strike your nerve - calm down. M2C is an amazing car, accelerate way harder than M2 OG. If you pay attention, I'm one of the first few that pointed that out in this thread - check earlier pages. You're right about 100-200kph being different than 60-130mph. Guess what - you're not alone knowing that. And you had an OG that let you down, well...on this one you're in the minority. I can relate though and I wouldn't speak good on the OG either had I have the same experience, but I would in any way be fair and not use butt feeling to conclude that the OG stops accelerating from 200kph. No mention that would hilariously mean that M2C wins by 1-1.2 sec in 100-200 and suddenly another 2 secs from just 200-209kph. Robin, again I want you to truly understand what it takes for the same platform to be 3s quicker in 60-130 under the same condition. I spend a lot of time (ending up burning more than a new car money) on what I call the OEM modding/tuning and is now roughly 100whp/100wtq above the OG stock almost everywhere above just 3k. And is only 3ish sec quicker so far. Mind you the car is already considered faster than the peak power number suggests thanks to its great PUC. As evidenced by the fact that I walk away from the M4 ZCP stock in a roll of any kind any day, not even close. I do not want to discount C/D's work as a long term subscriber, but in the area of acceleration instrument test, they are no good. I automatically ignore or take with a grain of salt their numbers, so do many other knowledgeable people, and I recommend you do the same. Study a little more, there're far better channels and sources to understand power and acceleration from. I'm sure you'd gain significantly more knowledge. And won't be ever coming up with the conclusion you just did here. Pardon my English, I'm not a native speaker.
__________________
Lemania 2320
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-25-2019, 03:54 AM | #70 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
752
Rep 1,857
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-25-2019, 04:06 AM | #71 |
S0THPAW
8783
Rep 7,852
Posts |
Last time i will chime in.
Cars are never tested in same conditions. C& D. OG M2 did 60-130mph 3 sec slower than M2C did that a few months (year)later. It depends on many factors an no, an M2C isn't 2s faster from 200kmh-210kmh but in the whole range(!!!) from 97kmh-209kmh (60-130mph) that C&D M2C was 3sec faster than that OG M2 on different days in different conditions. But those facts still stand. You can write a lot of stuff about accelleration times blablablabla and dismiss or even contempt my knowledge(!!!) Goddamned. Thank you for that. But it is like it is. 3s faster. Write C&D a letter they are so wrong about this. Just like M2C at Magny Cours is 3.4s faster. Why is that? You tell me...no.. better stop this nonsene. Cheers Robin |
Appreciate
1
MDuckie96.00 |
02-25-2019, 07:52 AM | #72 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
752
Rep 1,857
Posts |
Quote:
M2C is only 4km/h faster on the famous high speed straight (Dottinger Hohe) of the Nurburgring and 3km/h faster at the Schwedenkreuz straight. I would expect a larger delta if M2C is 3 seconds faster to 130mph. So is M2C faster? Of course, but I don't see 3 seconds faster to 130mph. All other tests besides the C/D one doesn't support M2C has such significant straight line performance over the OG M2, Maybe over 160mph will be a different story. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-25-2019, 10:02 AM | #74 |
Brigadier General
2756
Rep 3,361
Posts |
Of course nobody has tested a North American delivered M2C vs the EU OPF version...
__________________
Current Stable:
2024 G20 M340i Melbourne Red/Cognac 2019 F87 M2 Competition 6MT, LBB, slicktop, exec pkg 2007 E91 328i Silver, slushbox, Eibach fr/E93 M3 rear sway bars, ARC-8 |
Appreciate
1
Robin_NL8782.50 |
02-25-2019, 10:48 AM | #75 |
Enlisted Member
42
Rep 34
Posts |
I really don't think there's anything at all worth arguing about in this thread. My DD (until I get the M2C next week... and maybe even after if I have the willpower) is a 2017 Mazda CX-5 and I'm pretty sure it can't even get to 200kmh, but it's super fun to drive. Comparing 0-60/100/200 etc. and basing any opinion/conclusion on these figures seems to disregard the real reason anyone should pick up an M2/M2C.
|
Appreciate
2
cptobvious2531.50 qnet684.50 |
02-25-2019, 10:58 AM | #76 | |
Luxury at the redline :)
9108
Rep 7,563
Posts |
Quote:
Denial is a hella of a drug.. |
|
Appreciate
1
Robin_NL8782.50 |
02-25-2019, 01:21 PM | #77 |
Colonel
3689
Rep 2,956
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-25-2019, 01:32 PM | #78 |
Banned
4069
Rep 1,970
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-25-2019, 01:35 PM | #79 |
First Lieutenant
389
Rep 308
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-25-2019, 02:04 PM | #81 |
Brigadier General
2756
Rep 3,361
Posts |
Not according to this thread. Each newer version with an improved power/weight ratio will be no faster than the prior one. The upcoming M2CS will of course be no faster than the M2C and no faster than the OG M2 which apparently isn't any faster than the M240i which is not that much faster than the 230i; hence why buy anything but the 230i M-sport?
__________________
Current Stable:
2024 G20 M340i Melbourne Red/Cognac 2019 F87 M2 Competition 6MT, LBB, slicktop, exec pkg 2007 E91 328i Silver, slushbox, Eibach fr/E93 M3 rear sway bars, ARC-8 |
02-25-2019, 02:55 PM | #82 |
Luxury at the redline :)
9108
Rep 7,563
Posts |
A suggestion for the participants of this dick measuring contest between the M2 and M2C owners; make sure and use a seamstress tape instead of a carpenters, that way you don't end up with any cuts..
You welcome.. |
Appreciate
1
Robin_NL8782.50 |
02-25-2019, 03:44 PM | #83 | |
Private
26
Rep 52
Posts |
Quote:
Thank goodness, otherwise I would be so confused... |
|
Appreciate
1
MDuckie96.00 |
02-26-2019, 08:05 AM | #84 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
752
Rep 1,857
Posts |
Quote:
Sport Auto 0-200km/h (0-124mph) is 15.4. Auto Bild 0-200km/h is 14.9. So C/D's 0-130mph of 15.9 sounded reasonable. Now look at European OG M2s. C/D OG M2 0-130mph is 19.1 seconds. Auto Bild 0-200km/h (0-124mph) 15 seconds. Auto Bild (Another test) 0-200km/h 15.5 seconds. Sport Auto 0-200km/h 16 seconds. It just seems strange to me 0-124mph takes around 15~16 seconds but 0-130mph is 19.1? That's why I said unless the acceleration after 200km/h drops off a cliff, otherwise the C/D number just seems extra slow. I don't own M2s so nothing for me to denial about (I drive M5 and X5M), I was merely curious about such big gap between C/D's test of OG M2 and M2C and saw contradictions between the US and Europe tests. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-26-2019, 08:25 AM | #85 |
Private First Class
338
Rep 130
Posts |
In fact, no, I chime in again...
We all agree that the M2C is more performant than the M2. But, from its published press tests, it is definitely not MUCH more performant, on the contrary to what is claimed by some M2C owners in this forum. Because "much more performant" should refer, at the very least, to the kind of gap that exists, e.g., between the 1M and the M2, or between the M2 and the M4CS. Let's have a look at the performances of the 4 cars (source: Zeperf, values being averages of the most reliable press tests): 1M vs M2 vs M2C vs M4CS Acceleration 0 - 200 kph = 17.8s vs 15.6s vs 15.2s vs 13.0s Acceleration 0 - 250 kph = 31.1s vs 29.6s vs 29.4s vs 23.6s Laptime Nurburgring = 8m15s vs 7m58s vs 7m52s vs 7m38s Laptime Sachsenring: 1m40.18s vs 1m37.65s vs 1m37.15s vs 1m34.01s Deceleration 200-0 kph = 134.2m vs 132.3m vs 134.2m vs 132.1m Do you now see why calling the M2C "much more performant than the M2" is an overstatement? Whatever, that's no big deal, hakuna matata, have fun with your car, and drive safe Last edited by Io; 02-26-2019 at 12:49 PM.. |
Appreciate
2
cptobvious2531.50 BlkSVT388.50 |
02-26-2019, 09:19 AM | #86 | |
Lieutenant
780
Rep 422
Posts |
Quote:
I am disappointed to see that many people consider a factual debate to a be a D measurement contest. We are comparing not to show what is best or worse; everybody knows by now the M2C is faster. We need however to try to filter and criticise the information we read. There must have been an issue to justify the 2 seconds difference in the C/D review. Hey, for all I know they tested a broken OG M2. But that still isn't a good representation of the reality. Alongside me a couple of others have stated what which car does from 100-200. Even with extra shifts, the difference here to 97-209 wont be significant. 2 seconds is about the time the M2 (either) take from 200 to 210, so how could this ever be explained? To be honest, people don't have to understand this - but it would then also be great if they wouldn't so blindly state that it is a fact that the M2C is 3 seconds faster from 97 to 209 than the M2. This is simply impossible, if both cars were in an OK condition (which I won't say they were, but then again we should compare cars 1:1). Many other reviewers have measured the values and found a smaller and more reasonable difference. There is always some variance between the values read, but it's in the realm of what's reasonable. Now to just accept that the 3 seconds is even slightly possible - that is a give away that you simple have absolutely no clue on this subject. This isn't meant in any negative way, I am just stating a fact - many friends of mine love cars and have no clue about this either. I say it again, I have never had a BMW and have ordered an M2C so I am not in any way trying to make the OG M2 be more than it actually is. I do like being fair, though. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-26-2019, 11:22 AM | #87 |
S0THPAW
8783
Rep 7,852
Posts |
C&D are a bunch of liars and they don't know sh1t about the subject. I stand corrected. An OG M2 never will be that slow like 19.1 to 130mph even in the worst conditions possible.
And the M2Comp doing a 3.4 secs faster laptime @ Magny Course vs OG M2: Just not true. Just can't be. Or can it? Stupid mainstream media with their fake news. There is a UK video with some OG M2 and M2C and Alfa 4C in it, accellerating a few times from standstill to at least 120mph The M2C with some very very bad starts crushes the OG M2. I really think they manipulated that video with some special fx. Anyway I do'nt know who and what to believe and I'm not only being sarcastic but also a bit confused. Not kidding. What is true and what not.... But someone who never had the honour to drive both OG and M2C I tend to believe more easily than C& D. That's for sure. Cheers Robin |
Appreciate
0
|
02-26-2019, 01:58 PM | #88 |
Second Lieutenant
173
Rep 245
Posts |
Just to throw my hat in the ring. I drove the m2 and m2c back to back for a day. The og m2 feels faster but looking at the specs u would think think m2c is a bit faster. It doesn't matter. Buy one of the above and have fun. The m2c felt a bit sluggish and not as visceral as the og m2 but I'm still buying m2c as it is what suits my current requirements.
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|