[kovsky]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrush

Car and driver got 12.7@113 in a manual M2. The exact time and mph as a 2014 911. That same issue they got 12.1@119 for a DCT M4. What does it all mean? Nothing. We will start seeing time slips for the M2 soon enough.

And I agree, if the M2 does 107 it would be sad...but if it's really that slow then it must have the best chassis in the world to be able to hang with the M4 at the track.

I've driven the M2 flat out a few times now. It's much quicker than a 107 mph trap car. It feels with DCT like it's in the 112/113 range to me. But like you said this is just speculation. I'm putting mine on a dyno where many other similar cars have been tuned so we will have a good comparison soon.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

M2 did do 7:52 at the Nordschleife though BMW obviously wants M3/4 to stay King so they stated 7:58 as the official (repeatable) laptime...

It's all about (driving) dynamics.

Cheers
Robin

Source?

[ItsaGoose]

M4 and M2 Dyno Measured back to back:

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1249883

[zenmaster]

How is a dynojet reading 461HP for a stock M3?

[zayzay]

Thats what i cannot figure out

[zenmaster]

Figured it out:
M2 348ps=343hp, 512nm=377lb-ft
M3 396ps=390hp, 591nm=435lb-ft

edit: note how power keeps climbing after 4900 RPM, as expected. And compare to how power output stops climbing there on OP's dyno.

[FSociety]

Originally Posted by ItsaGoose

M4 and M2 Dyno Measured back to back:

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1249883

+1

Stock M3 HP 461
Stock M3 TQ 436

ACS Tune M3 HP 498
ACS Tune M3 TQ 496

Stock M2 HP 377
Stock M2 TQ 383

[zenmaster]

Those numbers are not wheel HP numbers, but rather some calculation that adds a transmission loss estimate.

[zenmaster]

I'm very happy with the M2 power numbers on that Dynojet and great to see how it compares to the M3.

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by zenmaster

I'm very happy with the M2 power numbers on that Dynojet and great to see how it compares to the M3.

Did we read some other post? Didn't that show the M3 up about 90 bhp?

That means that BMW didn't under rate teh M2, like it did the M3 and the B58, doesn't it?

[zenmaster]

Originally Posted by PrematureApex

Did we read some other post? Didn't that show the M3 up about 90 bhp?

According to the graph, the M3 stock made 390whp and the M2 stock made 343whp. I'd ignore the estimated crank numbers.

Originally Posted by PrematureApex

That means that BMW didn't under rate teh M2, like it did the M3 and the B58, doesn't it?

It means the M2 is slightly underrated. It's making at least 390BHP. That is good news.

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by zenmaster

According to the graph, the M3 stock made 390whp and the M2 stock made 343whp. I'd ignore the estimated crank numbers.

OK, didn't read close enough. I'm OK with that.

[FSociety]

Originally Posted by zenmaster

According to the graph, the M3 stock made 390whp and the M2 stock made 343whp. I'd ignore the estimated crank numbers.

It means the M2 is slightly underrated. It's making at least 390BHP. That is good news.

That is actually great news, like OP said lets repeat it =D

Surprised this didn't get any posts. I guess no one cares about the M2 dyno stats compared to the S55. What I found remarkable is the minimal loss of power to the wheels.
377 BHP - 348 WHP = Loss of 29 HP

M3 comparably
461 BHP - 397 WHP = Loss of 64 HP

Originally Posted by PrematureApex

OK, didn't read close enough. I'm OK with that.

lol me too

[OrangeCrush]

Originally Posted by zenmaster

According to the graph, the M3 stock made 390whp and the M2 stock made 343whp. I'd ignore the estimated crank numbers.

It means the M2 is slightly underrated. It's making at least 390BHP. That is good news.

So 47whp down from the M3?

[zenmaster]

But they are not measuring the engine power output directly, nor are they measuring drivetrain loss. So don't be surprised.

[Frequentflyer12]

First time on dyno in Sydney.