The Weight

M3 Number 86 · 10-29-2015, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomAce

The weights (EU-type) from 1er M and M2 are the same: 1570 kg (3454 lbs)

This includes 90% fuel, 68kg Driver and 7kg luggage.

Sport Auto Magazine had in 2011 the 1er M on the scales: 1513 kg ( 3329 lbs). This weight is without Driver and with 100% fuel.

=> 53 L fuel x 0,72 = 38kg of fuel (Sport Auto)

where EU-type weighing says 90% fuel:

=> 53 L fuel x 0,9 x0,72 = 34,3kg

difference: 3,7kg

1513kg - 3,7kg + 75kg = 1584,3 kg (3485,5 lbs) for the tested car in Sport Auto (probably with a better Equipment than Standard Equipment)

What I want to say is that the 1er M is probably not lighter than the M2...

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/s...17.html?show=4

What's with the 7kg of luggage? Lol

IEDEI · 10-29-2015, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M3 Number 86

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomAce

The weights (EU-type) from 1er M and M2 are the same: 1570 kg (3454 lbs)

This includes 90% fuel, 68kg Driver and 7kg luggage.

Sport Auto Magazine had in 2011 the 1er M on the scales: 1513 kg ( 3329 lbs). This weight is without Driver and with 100% fuel.

=> 53 L fuel x 0,72 = 38kg of fuel (Sport Auto)

where EU-type weighing says 90% fuel:

=> 53 L fuel x 0,9 x0,72 = 34,3kg

difference: 3,7kg

1513kg - 3,7kg + 75kg = 1584,3 kg (3485,5 lbs) for the tested car in Sport Auto (probably with a better Equipment than Standard Equipment)

What I want to say is that the 1er M is probably not lighter than the M2...

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/s...17.html?show=4

What's with the 7kg of luggage? Lol

portable meth lab?

dmboone25 · 10-29-2015, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IEDEI

ha! to be honest there's nothing i really want from the M2 except maybe the suspension geometry upgrades and carbon drive shaft (it does have a carbon drive shaft right?).

i wouldn't be surprised if at some point somebody frankensteins M2 suspension bits inside of a 1M. It is consistent with the roots of these cars.......as frankensteins!!!

hope you're enjoying your cayman!

The Cayman is great, couldn't ask for more - but I sill

my Bimmers too.

hyperzulu · 10-29-2015, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M3 Number 86

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperzulu

Quote:

Originally Posted by M3 Number 86

Your point is that weight is not indicative of a cars handling properties.

My point is that if you are using a tesla as your point it's not valid.

Maybe God didn't make us equal - I must be a superior driver/being

I'm not trying to argue with you or saying I am better than you. I'm just stating that your point doesn't make sense to me and probably others.

I'm not sure how I can explain it any simpler. And to be fair, I said the DISCUSSION regarding weight is irrelevant at this point. I'll try again to help you understand - look at the image below.

According to you, a stripper Astro van from 2005 outhandles a new M5 and a Model S. Throw some CF bits on that bad boy and you have yourself a hell of a ride. Look at that curb weight!

It's idiotic. Weight isn't going to tell you how a car feels on the road. A Bugatti Veyron weighs about the same as that stripper Astro van. I guess they both lap the 'Ring at about the same time and provide the same level of excitement doing it.

This discussion of curb weight is important why exactly? No one has driven the car to know whether the weight is a problem. Could it have been made lighter? Yes... the M4 was made to be lightweight and they still managed to make a GTS 180lbs lighter. But the M2 is supposed to be cheap and the M4 GTS anything but... so this discussion is pointless since we don't know whether weight is a detriment to this vehicle, and from a cost perspective lower weight isn't achievable, unfortunately.

First of all, I wasn't even talking about the M2 and its weight - I said who cares, just start ripping shit out and lose 100-200 pounds easy. So what are you talking about?

I was commenting on how you thought a tesla handled well which leads me to believe that you don't even push a car hard enough to even be commenting on handling.

And the Astro van

Like for like cars (sorry the m5 m6 ctsv comparison to your tesla mention didn't give you a clue), the lighter car will always prevail.

A Bugatti Veyron is slower than a lowly Carrera S around the ring. How is that possible it has 1000000 horsepowers.

First of all, it was you who decided to respond to my post that wasn't even a response to yours or anyone else's, but a general statement and observation about people griping over the weight before knowing how the car drives. So what are YOU talking about?

Like for like cars, the lighter one will always be faster? Bunch of bs. Pretty sure the M2 will be faster than the 1M despite being heavier and that seems about as "like for like" as you can get. Yeah the 1M loses a few horses to the new car, but not enough to discount for a 12 second difference on the Ring.

But I wasn't even talking about fast. I was talking about fun. No one can assume the cars weight will be a detriment to how much fun it is to drive. Talk about overweight is premature.

And making assumptions about how I drive? That's clever. Sure, I shouldn't be commenting on handling. And I'll assume based on how much trolling you do, you have a very tiny penis and shouldn't even be talking amongst men.

stren · 10-29-2015, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M3 Adjuster

You mean kinda like an N55B30T0?

Absolutely they would be able to recover the expenses of making an S20 off the N20 architecture at this point by utilizing tech like the closed deck head , forged and/or rlightened crank, , different stroke, Internals similar to the M4, and actual TWIN turbos, not Twinpower ...

I think people have to remember that the M2 is still a baby step. BMW tested the water with the 1/M but this is still another baby step. For some reason BMW will commit to cars like the X4 and X6, the 5GT but they are dead scared that a sporty small car that is perfectly representative of their brand might not do well. Anyway it's no longer limited and less of a parts bin project so there is progress albeit slow. BMW might have made their money back with an S20 but I think they wanted to see how this went first. Maybe it's also beyond just the sales return as much as throughput of the engineering team. I think it's also a bit like the Cayman/Boxster. How long did it take to finally get a real 911 engine into the Cayman? Companies worry about overlapping models even though we know that an M2 with S55 really wouldn't hurt M4 sales. Maybe they simply didn't have enough schedule to deliver an S20. I think it's far more likely that next generation will see a four cylinder S engine in the M2 and I think production will be higher too and weight should go down. I'm still skeptical of an M2 CSL this generation to be honest, M4 CSL seems way more likely.

People also seem to forget about the balance of power/handling/cooling when talking about dropping an S55 in. Just because you can fit an engine doesn't mean you can fit the cooling and that the other parts need to be sized up for the extra power. I remember how the N54 in the 335i struggled to run on the track because it would go into limp mode due to inadequate cooling. For me I think the M2 specs look very reasonable for power as long as it's delivered well i.e. responsively. The N54 always felt like enough power to me even untuned to get myself in trouble on the road or on the track. For me I'd rather the car have that unquantifiable "joy" of driving than anything else. The car that I've driven recently that had that "joy" in the largest amount was actually the latest GTI. It made me feel like a heretic

bdaddylo · 10-29-2015, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stren

People also seem to forget about the balance of power/handling/cooling when talking about dropping an S55 in. Just because you can fit an engine doesn't mean you can fit the cooling and that the other parts need to be sized up for the extra power. I remember how the N54 in the 335i struggled to run on the track because it would go into limp mode due to inadequate cooling.

I don't believe the 335i and N54 cooling issue was due to space. It was more of a cooling design miss by BMW.

hyperzulu · 10-29-2015, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdaddylo

I don't believe the 335i and N54 cooling issue was due to space. It was more of a cooling design miss by BMW.

Which they corrected in later models like the 335is. My car never went into limp mode even on tracks with surface temps well over 120 degrees.

IEDEI · 10-29-2015, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperzulu

First of all, it was you who decided to respond to my post that wasn't even a response to yours or anyone else's, but a general statement and observation about people griping over the weight before knowing how the car drives. So what are YOU talking about?

Like for like cars, the lighter one will always be faster? Bunch of bs. Pretty sure the M2 will be faster than the 1M despite being heavier and that seems about as "like for like" as you can get. Yeah the 1M loses a few horses to the new car, but not enough to discount for a 12 second difference on the Ring.

But I wasn't even talking about fast. I was talking about fun. No one can assume the cars weight will be a detriment to how much fun it is to drive. Talk about overweight is premature.

And making assumptions about how I drive? That's clever. Sure, I shouldn't be commenting on handling. And I'll assume based on how much trolling you do, you have a very tiny penis and shouldn't even be talking amongst men.

So Hyperzulu......when are you planning to get a Chevy Astro!?? You seem really into them!

hyperzulu · 10-29-2015, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IEDEI

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperzulu

First of all, it was you who decided to respond to my post that wasn't even a response to yours or anyone else's, but a general statement and observation about people griping over the weight before knowing how the car drives. So what are YOU talking about?

Like for like cars, the lighter one will always be faster? Bunch of bs. Pretty sure the M2 will be faster than the 1M despite being heavier and that seems about as "like for like" as you can get. Yeah the 1M loses a few horses to the new car, but not enough to discount for a 12 second difference on the Ring.

But I wasn't even talking about fast. I was talking about fun. No one can assume the cars weight will be a detriment to how much fun it is to drive. Talk about overweight is premature.

And making assumptions about how I drive? That's clever. Sure, I shouldn't be commenting on handling. And I'll assume based on how much trolling you do, you have a very tiny penis and shouldn't even be talking amongst men.

So Hyperzulu......when are you planning to get a Chevy Astro!?? You seem really into them!

Lol I'm not the one obsessed with weight. If weight is the standard by which great cars are measured, then by all means get an Astro van over an M5. The M5 weighs more. Woe is me. It must suck.

ilikebmxbikes · 10-29-2015, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperzulu

I'm not sure how I can explain it any simpler. And to be fair, I said the DISCUSSION regarding weight is irrelevant at this point. I'll try again to help you understand - look at the image below.

According to you, a stripper Astro van from 2005 outhandles a new M5 and a Model S. Throw some CF bits on that bad boy and you have yourself a hell of a ride. Look at that curb weight!

It's idiotic. Weight isn't going to tell you how a car feels on the road. A Bugatti Veyron weighs about the same as that stripper Astro van. I guess they both lap the 'Ring at about the same time and provide the same level of excitement doing it.

This discussion of curb weight is important why exactly? No one has driven the car to know whether the weight is a problem. Could it have been made lighter? Yes... the M4 was made to be lightweight and they still managed to make a GTS 180lbs lighter. But the M2 is supposed to be cheap and the M4 GTS anything but... so this discussion is pointless since we don't know whether weight is a detriment to this vehicle, and from a cost perspective lower weight isn't achievable, unfortunately.

Weight is actually extremely important. It affects a lot of factors of a vehicle. I understand why the car doesn't have all the weight savings with aluminum and CF due to cost, but what does your astro van argument have anything to do with it? Would you rather have a 3500lb m2 or a 3300lb m2?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IEDEI

well the 1M has been weighed and tested. Will have to wait until the M2 is put on the scales. The 1M has been confirmed to be around 3300 lbs numerous times without the driver.......i find it VERY hard to believe that the M2 will be the same weight considering how much larger it is with more electronics....

Also remember that the 1M's weight was REVISED a few times prior to release. I wouldn't be surprised if the M2's weight is also revised prior to release. I feel they have used the 1M's weight as a preliminary number until they finalize things......exact same number? sounds fishy to me.

Add a lardy DCT in there with a sunroof and you're looking at maybe 100-200 lbs heavier easily.

We will just have to wait. If the F8X release told us anything its the car will likely weigh more than we think. Everyone expected the f8x to actually weigh in the 3350's but they are usually in the 3450-3550's and DCT adds 80 or so lbs. The m235i does weigh a good bit more than the e82's so while I do believe the m2 will weigh more than the 1m, we will have to wait and see how much.

hyperzulu · 10-29-2015, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikebmxbikes

Weight is actually extremely important. It affects a lot of factors of a vehicle. I understand why the car doesn't have all the weight savings with aluminum and CF due to cost, but what does your astro van argument have anything to do with it? Would you rather have a 3500lb m2 or a 3300lb m2?

The astro van comment means weight alone is not going to tell you how well a car drives. An M5 weighs more and drives much better than an astro van. It's much more important how that weight is distributed and how the chassis was tuned to handle the weight. Would you rather have seats that reduce 40lbs or wheels that do the same?

To gripe about the weight now would make sense if BMW said "hey guys we took an M235i, gave it 10 inch wide wheels and threw a bag of bricks in it to make it slightly heavier." Obviously not. All we know is what it weighs, not how the weight came to be or how the car is tuned to handle its mass. Does the curb weight mean the car is ruined, or is the net effect of what was designed yield something good? I really don't know.

ilikebmxbikes · 10-29-2015, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperzulu

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikebmxbikes

Weight is actually extremely important. It affects a lot of factors of a vehicle. I understand why the car doesn't have all the weight savings with aluminum and CF due to cost, but what does your astro van argument have anything to do with it? Would you rather have a 3500lb m2 or a 3300lb m2?

The astro van comment means weight alone is not going to tell you how well a car drives. An M5 weighs more and drives much better than an astro van. It's much more important how that weight is distributed and how the chassis was tuned to handle the weight. Would you rather have seats that reduce 40lbs or wheels that do the same?

To gripe about the weight now would make sense if BMW said "hey guys we took an M235i, gave it 10 inch wide wheels and threw a bag of bricks in it to make it slightly heavier." Obviously not. All we know is what it weighs, not how the weight came to be or how the car is tuned to handle its mass. Does the curb weight mean the car is ruined, or is the net effect of what was designed yield something good? I really don't know.

We are talking BMW's not astro vans. Lighter is better. I have no doubt it will be a performer but the stock weight seems a bit disappointing. Many of us imagined the m2 being the smaller lighter m4 but really it's just marginally smaller and lighter.

Mavus · 10-29-2015, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperzulu

The astro van comment means weight alone is not going to tell you how well a car drives. An M5 weighs more and drives much better than an astro van. It's much more important how that weight is distributed and how the chassis was tuned to handle the weight. Would you rather have seats that reduce 40lbs or wheels that do the same?

To gripe about the weight now would make sense if BMW said "hey guys we took an M235i, gave it 10 inch wide wheels and threw a bag of bricks in it to make it slightly heavier." Obviously not. All we know is what it weighs, not how the weight came to be or how the car is tuned to handle its mass. Does the curb weight mean the car is ruined, or is the net effect of what was designed yield something good? I really don't know.

The car will be very good no doubt. It will be great for dd and an occasional hpde. They know very well how to manage CG, mass and polar moment. Clearly the M team was instructed to leave some room for the track version. It is not that difficult to make improvements to M2 and make it an awesome machine. Obviously they already have the driver focused car in work. Here are some items that can be easily upgraded:
1. Wheels
2. CF Roof, hood, trunk (maybe also some other panels such as fenders)
3. Option for Li battery (could be 30-40 lbs lighter)
4. Interior (lighter insulation), manual f+r seats (conservative est. of 100lbs for cloth interior)
5. lighter gadget option (?)

I would guess the light weight model could be ~200lbs lighter at $12-20K premium. Now that would be awesome. However there might be some additional weight added back in if they offer cage and add additional braces.

So 3200 lbs, 400/400 and we have a deal

hyperzulu · 10-29-2015, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikebmxbikes

We are talking BMW's not astro vans. Lighter is better. I have no doubt it will be a performer but the stock weight seems a bit disappointing. Many of us imagined the m2 being the smaller lighter m4 but really it's just marginally smaller and lighter.

OK sure, but look at the list above and tell me how BMW would have made this car without stepping on the M4?

I personally don't care what happens to the M4. I would have also preferred a mini M4, but it seems the options are M2... or no M2. I'm good with the fact that we got an M2, even if it didn't get the same level of TLC as the M4. I guess everyone has to go through a period of griping about this car before they either decide to be on board with it and pass on it.

Artemis · 10-29-2015, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IEDEI

well the 1M has been weighed and tested. Will have to wait until the M2 is put on the scales. The 1M has been confirmed to be around 3300 lbs numerous times without the driver.......i find it VERY hard to believe that the M2 will be the same weight considering how much larger it is with more electronics....

Comparison of figures about size and weight:

BMW 1M

Length: 172.4 in / 4380 mm | Width: 71.0 in / 1803 mm | Height: 55.9 in / 1420 mm
Wheelbase: 104.7 in / 2660 mm | Front Track: 60.7 in / 1541 mm | Rear Track: 60.7 in / 1541 mm
Curb Weight: 3296 lbs / 1495 kg (all fluids / 90% fuel / no driver) | Weight unladen: 3461 lbs / 1570 kg (+ 68 kg driver + 7 kg luggage)

BMW M235i

Length: 174.5 in / 4432 mm | Width: 69.8 in / 1774 mm | Height: 55.8 in / 1418 mm
Wheelbase: 105.9 in / 2690 mm | Front Track: 59.9 in / 1521 mm | Rear Track: 61.3 in / 1556 mm
Weight: 3373 lbs / 1530 kg

BMW E46 M3

Length: 176.8|176.9 in / 4491|4493 mm | Width: 70.1 in / 1781 mm | Height: 54.0|53.9 in / 1372|1369 mm)
Wheelbase: 107.5 in / 2730 mm
Curb weight: 3415 lbs / 1549 kg

BMW F80 M3

Length: 183.9 in / 4671 mm | Width: 73.9 in / 1877 mm | Height: 56.0 in / 1424 mm
Wheelbase: 110.7 in / 2812 mm | Front Track: 62.1 in / 1579 mm | Rear Track: 63.1 / 1603 mm
Weight: 3300 lbs / 1497 kg (all fluids / 90% fuel / no driver) | 3466 lbs / 1572 kg (+ 68 kg driver + 7 kg luggage)
US curb weight (including full fluids and frequently ordered options): : DCT: 3585 lbs / 1626 kg | Manual: 3530 lbs / 1601 kg

BMW F82 M4

Length: 183.9 in / 4671 mm | Width: 73.6 in / 1870 mm | Height: 54.4 in / 1383 mm
Wheelbase: 110.7 in / 2812 mm | Front track: 62.1 in / 1579 mm | Rear track: 63.1 / 1603 mm
Weight: 3300 lbs / 1497 kg (all fluids / 90% fuel / no driver) | 3466 lbs / 1572 kg (+ 68 kg driver + 7 kg luggage)
US curb weight (including full fluids and frequently ordered options): DCT: 3585 lbs / 1626 kg | Manual: 3530 lbs / 1601 kg

Throwing in this one just for fun: Porsche Cayman GT4

Length: 174.7 in / 4438 mm | Width: 77.88 in (71.54 in excluding exterior mirrors) / 1978 mm (1817 mm excluding exterior mirrors) | Height: 49.84 in / 1266 mm
Wheelbase: 97.80 in / 2484 mm
Curb Weight: 2954 lbs / 1340 kg (all fluids / 90% fuel / no driver) | Weight unladen: 3120 lbs / 1415 kg (+ 68 kg driver + 7 kg luggage)
In case anyone wondered about the weight of the Cayman GT4 in the real world: for this owner it's 3117 lbs without him on board and 3316 lbs with him on board.

ilikebmxbikes · 10-29-2015, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperzulu

OK sure, but look at the list above and tell me how BMW would have made this car without stepping on the M4?

I personally don't care what happens to the M4. I would have also preferred a mini M4, but it seems the options are M2... or no M2. I'm good with the fact that we got an M2, even if it didn't get the same level of TLC as the M4. I guess everyone has to go through a period of griping about this car before they either decide to be on board with it and pass on it.

My point is I am personally disappointed the car weighs more than it does. I understand they want to make an entry level M car and need to respect the distance between it and the m4 both in cost and in performance. I can still be disappointed in the weight. If it weighs in on a scale at above 3450lbs it is fat. We will just have to wait and see them when they come out.

I am sure it will be a great car for what it is, but to me, it doesn't really offer anything that would make me choose it over an m4. I wanted a smaller lighter m4, which it barely achieves and not enough to really make me justify buying one. I may just have to save up for the 2017 Chevy Astrovan.

M2 CSL · 10-29-2015, 07:42 PM

Yea, tough call. I'm on the fence but I will probably go Astrovan too.

M2 CSL · 10-29-2015, 07:53 PM

BTW, what's with all this CSL chatter? It's going to be like a $100k+ car if they do it lol. Not to mention the premiums one will probably have to pay. I'd take a few other cars when things start creeping that high.... Thats big boy money.

hyperzulu · 10-29-2015, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikebmxbikes

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperzulu

OK sure, but look at the list above and tell me how BMW would have made this car without stepping on the M4?

I personally don't care what happens to the M4. I would have also preferred a mini M4, but it seems the options are M2... or no M2. I'm good with the fact that we got an M2, even if it didn't get the same level of TLC as the M4. I guess everyone has to go through a period of griping about this car before they either decide to be on board with it and pass on it.

My point is I am personally disappointed the car weighs more than it does. I understand they want to make an entry level M car and need to respect the distance between it and the m4 both in cost and in performance. I can still be disappointed in the weight. If it weighs in on a scale at above 3450lbs it is fat. We will just have to wait and see them when they come out.

I am sure it will be a great car for what it is, but to me, it doesn't really offer anything that would make me choose it over an m4. I wanted a smaller lighter m4, which it barely achieves and not enough to really make me justify buying one. I may just have to save up for the 2017 Chevy Astrovan.

Yes, it weighs more than it does.

ilikebmxbikes · 10-29-2015, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperzulu

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikebmxbikes

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperzulu

OK sure, but look at the list above and tell me how BMW would have made this car without stepping on the M4?

I personally don't care what happens to the M4. I would have also preferred a mini M4, but it seems the options are M2... or no M2. I'm good with the fact that we got an M2, even if it didn't get the same level of TLC as the M4. I guess everyone has to go through a period of griping about this car before they either decide to be on board with it and pass on it.

My point is I am personally disappointed the car weighs more than it does. I understand they want to make an entry level M car and need to respect the distance between it and the m4 both in cost and in performance. I can still be disappointed in the weight. If it weighs in on a scale at above 3450lbs it is fat. We will just have to wait and see them when they come out.

I am sure it will be a great car for what it is, but to me, it doesn't really offer anything that would make me choose it over an m4. I wanted a smaller lighter m4, which it barely achieves and not enough to really make me justify buying one. I may just have to save up for the 2017 Chevy Astrovan.

Yes, it weighs more than it does.

Apologies - "weighs as much as it does"*.

rcoccultwar · 10-29-2015, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IEDEI

So Hyperzulu......when are you planning to get a Chevy Astro!?? You seem really into them!

When I was a paperboy in the 80's, I always thought that same Chevy Astro I saw everyday would really haul ass.

The 2016's and the 2017 Chevy Astro's, I would imagine, will dust my 150ft/lb of torque FR-S.

M3 Number 86 · 10-29-2015, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperzulu

First of all, it was you who decided to respond to my post that wasn't even a response to yours or anyone else's, but a general statement and observation about people griping over the weight before knowing how the car drives. So what are YOU talking about?

Like for like cars, the lighter one will always be faster? Bunch of bs. Pretty sure the M2 will be faster than the 1M despite being heavier and that seems about as "like for like" as you can get. Yeah the 1M loses a few horses to the new car, but not enough to discount for a 12 second difference on the Ring.

But I wasn't even talking about fast. I was talking about fun. No one can assume the cars weight will be a detriment to how much fun it is to drive. Talk about overweight is premature.

And making assumptions about how I drive? That's clever. Sure, I shouldn't be commenting on handling. And I'll assume based on how much trolling you do, you have a very tiny penis and shouldn't even be talking amongst men.

I'm sitting here laughing my ass off at how mad you are!

Astro van, Tesla, Veyron......what a lineup.

My assumption was based on the cars you have brought up that were "fun" to drive.

But sure, of course it's trolling.

Btw the M2 has 7 years worth of technological advancement vs the 1M - of course it's going to be faster. Lol.

10-29-2015, 07:42 PM	#83
M2 CSL Lieutenant 447 Rep 429 Posts Drives: M2 Lightweight Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: a particular place or position iTrader: (0)	Yea, tough call. I'm on the fence but I will probably go Astrovan too.
	Appreciate 2 Quote

10-29-2015, 07:53 PM	#84
M2 CSL Lieutenant 447 Rep 429 Posts Drives: M2 Lightweight Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: a particular place or position iTrader: (0)	BTW, what's with all this CSL chatter? It's going to be like a $100k+ car if they do it lol. Not to mention the premiums one will probably have to pay. I'd take a few other cars when things start creeping that high.... Thats big boy money.
	Appreciate 0 Quote