[Remonster]

Originally Posted by Stage IV

I never bought into the hype of 50/50 weight distribution and how important it is for a balanced feel. The 911 is 40/60 and no one complains about it being unbalanced.

Plenty of people complain about 911s feeling unbalanced and actually, before the 997, a lot of people died in 911s because of just how extremely ass-heavy they used to be (combined with their suspension geometry at that time that meant it was unsafe to lift off the throttle while cornering). Over time the 911 has grown longer, had its engine moved further forward, and had its suspension geometry refined to help shift its weight balance forward and reduce its polar moment of inertia to turn it into the extremely nice handling car that it is today. But guess what? The Cayman still handles much better than the 911 and it's also a lot better over bumpy roads because it doesn't have an overly light nose floating and bouncing around. PASM goes a long way towards masking this last point but the better balanced Cayman is much better.

50:50 is actually not the ideal, I think most people seem to agree that 45:55 is the closer to the ideal overall weight distribution but there are thousands of factors that affect a car's handling balance beyond the front to rear weight distribution.

[M-Pilot]

Originally Posted by Remonster

Plenty of people complain about 911s feeling unbalanced and actually, before the 997, a lot of people died in 911s because of just how extremely ass-heavy they used to be (combined with their suspension geometry at that time that meant it was unsafe to lift off the throttle while cornering). Over time the 911 has grown longer, had its engine moved further forward, and had its suspension geometry refined to help shift its weight balance forward and reduce its polar moment of inertia to turn it into the extremely nice handling car that it is today. But guess what? The Cayman still handles much better than the 911 and it's also a lot better over bumpy roads because it doesn't have an overly light nose floating and bouncing around. PASM goes a long way towards masking this last point but the better balanced Cayman is much better.

50:50 is actually not the ideal, I think most people seem to agree that 45:55 is the closer to the ideal overall weight distribution but there are thousands of factors that affect a car's handling balance beyond the front to rear weight distribution.

Correct! 50/50 is pretty much as good as it gets for a front engine car. I personally prefer the rear biased weight distribution of Porsche.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by chris719

People cross-compare all the time. It's fine but every thread is turning into a pity party about 150 lbs (5%) on an already heavy 4 seat coupe. It's getting old, like there is some magic threshold that's been crossed and the car is no longer good. No amount of crying about it is going to change anything.

I guarantee you no one gives a f on the Camaro or Mustang forums that the ZL1 or GT 350 weigh more than the base cars.

Interestingly, the difference between the nicer-trim 2SS 1LE and bare-bones 1SS 1LE is just 9lbs. The 1SS basically comes with all the piping in the seats for the heated/cooled seats and everything else like heated steering wheel, rear cross-traffic and blind spot sensors, nicer radio, nicer trim and interior accent lights, etc., doesn't weigh anything. This also means significant weight reduction is possible, changing out seats for fixed, etc. I had the 2010 LS3 2SS with some suspension mods and thew few hundred pounds of lower weight plus a bit more power is definitely noticeable. This car is pretty much on the upper limit of what I find acceptable for a sports car. We can't get more carbon-fiber integration quick enough IMO, it should be coming soon, but cars should be getting lighter, not heavier. Same thing with airplanes. It's sad that a Cessna 172 with 360ci 180hp engine now weighs the same or more than an old Cessna 182 retractable gear airplane with a 235hp 540ci engine, said 182 cruises much faster and can carry around much more payload. Luckily, the newer manufacturers on the market are designing airplanes that go faster and carry more with less HP, thanks due to advances in composite materials and modern aerodynamics. It'd be nice to see some of the same in cars soon.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by cntzl

Correct! 50/50 is pretty much as good as it gets for a front engine car. I personally prefer the rear biased weight distribution of Porsche.

Rear biased is definitely optimal for a rear-wheel drive car or AWD car. When you're braking, you don't need more weight over the front. When accelerating, you'll get even more grip.

[M-Pilot]

Originally Posted by chris719

Rear biased is definitely optimal for a rear-wheel drive car or AWD car. When you're braking, you don't need more weight over the front. When accelerating, you'll get even more grip.

Exactly!

[terrywang]

Originally Posted by cntzl

OG M2 never had perfect 50/50 weight distribution (especially the DCT). The weight distribution of OG M2 DCT is 51.9/48.1.

I'd say infinitely close to 50:50 weight distribution instead of a hard 50:50 ;-)

The M2 Pure (with sunroof - yes, it does exist - at least in Australia) Manual weight distribution won't be better than the DCT ;-)

DriveTribe put the M2 Manual on Dyno and it was 50:50, see video at 1:26

youtu.be/BYyOVr5AAwM

[M-Pilot]

Originally Posted by terrywang

I'd say infinitely close to 50:50 weight distribution instead of a hard 50:50 ;-)

The M2 Pure (with sunroof - yes, it does exist - at least in Australia) Manual weight distribution won't be better than the DCT ;-)

DriveTribe put the M2 Manual on Dyno and it was 50:50, see video at 1:26

youtu.be/BYyOVr5AAwM

Oh ok, so you want to use BMW's published figure for M2C but prefer a 3rd party source for OG M2 instead of BMW's official number for OG M2 because it's closer to 50:50? Yea, that sounds apples to apples.

Bottom line is there is 0.5% weight distribution difference between M2C and M2 according to BMW's numbers:

M2 MT: Front 51.4% / Rear 48.6%
M2 DCT: Front 51.9% / Rear 48.1%

M2c MT: Front 51.9% / Rear 48.1%
M2c DCT: Front 52.4% / Rear 47.6%

[aerokubectl]

50/50 is a nice goal but with a front mounted engine with RWD you want to move as much weight to the back as possible without adding unnecessary weight.

If you can pull off 45/55 you're crushing it, but thats fantasy land. The engine weighs a metric crapton

[VIERsr]

To have a 45/55 you need to move the gearbox and the differential on the back (transaxle scheme), no way to get it with a Bmw

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by _RS4_

To have a 45/55 you need to move the gearbox and the differential on the back (transaxle scheme), no way to get it with a Bmw

Mother-in-law in the boot et voilá.

Cheers
Robin

[aerokubectl]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

Mother-in-law in the boot et voilá.

Cheers
Robin

Haha my mother in law is awesome tho

[scflaw]

Originally Posted by oshalygin

Haha my mother in law is awesome tho

Then she gets to go in the trunk in one piece! =D (just kidding, don't do it)

[4PIPE]

anyone know what the weight of the first m4 was? im going from a 2014 m4 to an m2c and want to know the weight difference.

[jagged]

I've had a base M4 in M/T before and just recently got a fully optioned M2C in M/T. On paper, they may seem similar (maybe M4 was lighter?) but the M2C feels much more nimble so I can't feel the "weight" issue so far. I guess it's probably its due to size.

However, I also used to own a Cayman 981 GTS which is a well known lightweight compact Porsche. I really tried to like it but the heavier 911 just felt much more fun even "only" in C2S form. Then of course, the GT3 was completely in another level.

So sometimes, I'm a little confused if weight is really a big deal to enjoy cars. I mean, I've also experienced an MX5 which was super lightweight. But power was lacking and it can get tiring to drive it long distance. I'm thinking that for most modern cars, anything with not much power should handle ok in general?