[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by HBspeed

I have to wonder, when writing this was the engine strategy used by Mercedes or Audi ever taken under consideration?

I have never heard anyone complain about the C63 AMG being a "poor relation" because it uses a detuned version of the engine used in the E63, S63, CL63, CLS63 and SL63.

I have never heard anyone complain that the "spotlight" was taken away from the E63, S63, CL63, CLS63 and SL63... because the C63 used the same engine in a car placed lower in the size and marketing hierarchy.

Like wise I have never heard anyone say such things regarding the fact that the RS4/RS5 use the same engine as the R8 V8.

Rather I surmise that BMW wishes to employ the 911 vs Cayman marketing model. Artificially limiting its best and lightest chassis/platform for a sports car... in order to protect the inferior more obese one.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Rupes

Everyone seems to think the option should be either a turbo 4 or turbo 6, but I would love a nice 350ish HP naturally aspirated inline 6. That would be awesome. Keeps the M4 unique, and gives the 2 series a unique, but less powerful engine.

I just hate the idea of a 4 cylinder, regardless of HP, lightness, smoothness, etc.

It has been said explicitly that there will be no more naturally aspirated engines coming out of M. Emissions and fuel economy regulations prohibit the development of such an engine.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by BMWJS

If Scott's input regarding extensive use of carbon fiber is put into action, BMW should be able to bring the M2 in under 3000 lbs. All things considered, a 6 cylinder will still make it a better car!

Depends on what he meant by "extensive". They're not going to replace the core chassis for the M2. There is an upcoming Z with a carbon tub, but the notion of replacing the existing steel F22 chassis with carbon fiber is a pipe dream. This means we'll likely see body panels and bracing made from CFRP, just like the F8x cars. To get an idea what this saves you, have a look at Aust350z's comment below.

Between the engine size reduction and an overall 5% weight savings, you're looking at around 310 lbs of weight loss from a 3,400 lb M235i. Squeezing that extra 90-100 lbs out of a car this size is not going to be easy. Getting under 3,000 lbs would require a massive effort. Doing that and going with an I6 is simply unachievable with the existing F22 chassis.

Originally Posted by Aust350z

I think your right with 3,100lbs.

I'd really like 1,350kgs (~3000lbs). But to achieve BMW would need to find 180kgs (~400 lbs) compared to M235i Euro weight of 1,530kgs (~3,400lbs).

I4 N20 over I6 N55 already nets 60kg (~130lbs). (Ignoring some weight increase needed for S20).

Assume 5% weight reduction (M4 savings) for using carbon-fibre plastics nets 80kgs (180lbs).

This still leaves us around 40-45kg (90-100lbs) short. Can they get 7.5% weight reduction? If they could - where would it come from?

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Gaviin

I seriously don't understand this whole concept of not wanting the lower numbered models outperforming the higher numbered. I mean, smaller cars *should* be faster, particularly on the track. If you want more doors, leg room, and luxury, then you should expect some performance trade-offs and you should expect to pay more.

The current approach strikes me as very small-minded thinking... "bigger number car must be faster!!!"

Small-minded is how the market thinks. What percentage of M3 buyers take their cars to a track? The only reason we even get M-cars anymore is because the mass-market buys them.

The original M3 was a homologation car, built in an environment with rules that required BMW to make that road car. That environment doesn't exist any more. Race cars share very little with road cars because of safety concerns and increased pressure for excitement on race tracks. Accessibility has taken a back seat to these factors.

It's regrettable, but wishing for things that cannot be only leads to frustration.

[kyleb350]

If the M2 had 340 hp to 3100 lbs, that would actually match the e92 M3 power to weight ratio (nevermind the torque to weight)! I know it's more about beating the current competition over beating previous higher end same-brand models, but I find that figure exciting in itself.

[Roundown]

Originally Posted by HBspeed

All this inevitable 4 vs 6 cylinder talk makes me wonder...

What is keeping M from taking the S55, ripping out the turbos and all associated plumbing, intercoolers, etc. Saving a good amount of weight in the process. And then tuning that base S55 engine the best they can on whatever their budget?

I would image people would go nuts for this Naturally aspirated S55 in an M2. It would avoid the inevitable M235i comparisons of having a 4 cylinder, and make all the enthusiasts and cylinder number lovers beyond happy.

What would the weight difference really be between a hypothetical S20 and an S55 without the turbos and all associated plumbing, intercoolers, etc.? Can't be that big I would imagine.

Doesn't quite work like that. S55 (and the N55) we're developed to be FI. It's not as simple as removing the plumbing and hotting up the cams.

[sdpauly]

Originally Posted by kyleb350

If the M2 had 340 hp to 3100 lbs, that would actually match the e92 M3 power to weight ratio (nevermind the torque to weight)! I know it's more about beating the current competition over beating previous higher end same-brand models, but I find that figure exciting in itself.

BMW still has a couple years to pull its head out of its arse and deliver an M2 that outperforms the previous gen 1M (>360hp). It needs to have an TT inline 6, none of this 4 cylinder crap. It can be the same price as the M4, it doesn't matter if it outperforms the M4, matter of fact, it should. The smaller lighter variant with the same power should. Did the Z4 M coupe and roadster steal sales from the M3 (considering both had the S54 inline 6)?

Also, consider, BMW is abandoning their old naming convention anyway. What is an M3 anymore? What is an M4? What is an M2? It's all new, heritage doesn't matter anymore, they've thrown that out the window... So if the M4 and M2 are all moving in uncharted waters anyway, then let the M2 be the performance/enthusiast car that is the same powertrain as the M3/4 but in a lighter and smaller package. People who still want the space and size can get the M3 or M4.

Again, this isn't about getting something cheaper than an M4 that outperforms. I would pay the same price or more than an M4 for a proper M2. Let the M3/4 be kings of the hill for a couple years, then give us the M2 we should have.

[Seagull]

I thought the m235i already beats the 1m around the ring????

[sdpauly]

Originally Posted by Seagull

I thought the m235i already beats the 1m around the ring????

Link? M235i is down on power and much heavier than the 1M. I would be very surprised if this is true.

[Itgb]

Originally Posted by sdpauly

Link? M235i is down on power and much heavier than the 1M. I would be very surprised if this is true.

M235i Will Beat 1M Coupe Around Nurburgring

M235i is Faster on Track Than 1M Coupe(Interview)

[sdpauly]

Originally Posted by Itgb

M235i Will Beat 1M Coupe Around Nurburgring

M235i is Faster on Track Than 1M Coupe(Interview)

These are the same links I could find by quick googling. Neither of them post a time. Just speculation that the M235i "will be faster" but no official times posted.

I found this in regards to the 1M. Times posted between 8:15 - 8:18

http://f20.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=782836
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/bmw_1er_m_coupe.html

I cant find any posting of official lap times for the M235i.

[sdpauly]

How can a car which has 320hp and weighs around 3550 pounds beat a car that has 340hp and weighs 3340 lbs around the Nurburgring?

20 more hp and 200lbs less = slower??

Does not compute?

[Itgb]

Originally Posted by sdpauly

How can a car which has 320hp and weighs around 3550 pounds beat a car that has 340hp and weighs 3340 lbs around the Nurburgring?

20 more hp and 200lbs less = slower??

Does not compute?

Gearing, aero, tires, suspension setup, power curve(peak numbers don't tell the whole story), etc.

And just to clarify, 1M has 335hp.

[sdpauly]

Power and weight are the single biggest factors that determine performance. Yes, you can accomplish a lot with gearing and tires, weight distribution, wheelbase, etc... But at the end of the day, all other things being equal, the car with more power (and more importantly, less weight) will be faster.

Are you suggesting that they ran the 1M with lower-grade tires or a less aggressive gear setup than the M235i? I would think if all other factors are equal, tires, weather, type of fuel, time of day, etc...

Also considering that the 1M was designed to be a more performance-oriented model than just a vanilla 135i with M-sport package, which is basically what an "M235i" is.

So, I'm still very skeptical that a less powerful, heavier, car is faster.

[HBspeed]

The S55, even detuned, would be the best case scenario seeing as naturally aspirated is out the window. There really is no excuse for maintaining the hierarchy of the M2 "enthusiast small sports car" being slower than the yacht sized M3/M4.

The M3/M4 is generally bought by mass market buyers who buy primarily for bragging rights and never drive their cars hard. That's fine so long as they give the true M3 successor (the M2) the ultimate in performance. Yet BMW will most likely deny that to us enthusiasts in order to protect the egos of the primarily luxury and status concerned M3/M4 buyers. This is the same strategy Porsche has used to cripple the Cayman and thus protect the primarily image and ego concerned 911 buyer, and BMW is looking to adopt this strategy full on. Rather choosing to ignore the great success Mercedes and Audi have had by not artificially crippling their lower cars like with the C63 AMG getting the E63 AMG engine, and the RS4/RS5 getting the R8 engine.

As far as I am concerned, the modern M3/M4 is now the M5/M6... with the modern M5/M6 being an M7/M8. The M2 is the true M3, not the huge boat they now call such.

The M3 is not what it once was: The motorsports upgraded version of the smallest/lightest sedan platform made by BMW. That is no longer the 3 series as it was for so long, but rather now it is the 2-series. Thus the upcoming M2 is the only true successor to the M3 of old... in all but BMW marketing speak.




The point about an S20 vs a tuned N55 is very important. Personally I had zero interest in the 1M because it used a cheaply tuned non-M engine. In the M2's case, a tuned N55 would be the same incarnation and thus a dealbreaker for me.

A true M-engine S20 would be much more special than a cheaply tuned N55, but would possibly disappoint even more buyers seeing as the 1M sold so well... and the vast majority of buyers don't see a 4-cylinder engine as an acceptable compromise.

Honestly, choosing between a cheaply tuned N55 and an S20 is like the South Park episode where they have to choose between a "Giant Douche" and a "Turd Sandwich" wherein the true enthusiasts will be disappointed no matter what the outcome.

Doesn't sound like a great recipe for the M2... BMW's true M3 successor now does it?

[doo13sky]

and M235i will also have 335hp :-)

...they only claims 320 :-)

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by sdpauly

How can a car which has 320hp and weighs around 3550 pounds beat a car that has 340hp and weighs 3340 lbs around the Nurburgring?

20 more hp and 200lbs less = slower??

Does not compute?

I agree that it doesn't compute, but we're working with pre-release information. A couple of things to keep in mind:

1) The M235i may actually put down the same HP numbers on a dyno as the 1M. BMW's stated M235i torque output is the same as the 1M. BMW's stated HP is a slightly lower figure, but it's possible this isn't 100% true.

2) If the M235i truly is any faster around the ring, I would venture it's because of its higher stability (due to the longer wheelbase), and possibly a better tire/wheel combo (a factor mentioned in the claims). The ring is a notoriously destabilizing track, which gives an advantage to cars with good stability. A car that is reliably stable can carry more speed through the corner than a car with marginally better mechanical grip because of driver confidence and the limits of human reflex.

[Itgb]

Originally Posted by sdpauly

Power and weight are the single biggest factors that determine performance. Yes, you can accomplish a lot with gearing and tires, weight distribution, wheelbase, etc... But at the end of the day, all other things being equal, the car with more power (and more importantly, less weight) will be faster.

It's not just as simple as power and weight though is it. Peak power is only 1 aspect of a car's performance. A car with a bigger area under the power curve but a lower peak number will be faster.

Originally Posted by sdpauly

Are you suggesting that they ran the 1M with lower-grade tires or a less aggressive gear setup than the M235i? I would think if all other factors are equal, tires, weather, type of fuel, time of day, etc...

I'm saying that the stock PSS tires on the M235i are a slightly better tire than the 1M stock PS2 tires. I haven't looked into the gearing of each car, but I just brought it up as an example of how to change a car's performance besides power and weight.

Originally Posted by sdpauly

Also considering that the 1M was designed to be a more performance-oriented model than just a vanilla 135i with M-sport package, which is basically what an "M235i" is.

Considering the power levels, I think the 135is is a closer comparison to the M235i than just an M-sport 135i.

Originally Posted by sdpauly

So, I'm still very skeptical that a less powerful, heavier, car is faster.

I would be skeptical too, but there are many variables to a car's performance besides power and weight. Let's take a look at the drag coefficient. The only number I can find on the 1M drag coefficient is 0.37. The M235i has a drag coefficient of 0.29 which is a huge difference. On a long high speed track like the Nurburgring, that could be seconds advantage for the M235i.

Take a look at this Grassroots Motorsports article, where they dropped 3 sec from a 34sec laptime by only basically changing tires and suspension setup. Imagine a longer track, where the advantage would add up to maybe 5+sec. No change in power and negligible changes to weight.

I'm not trying to argue with you, only help you see that there is a lot more than just peak power numbers and weight.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by sdpauly

So, I'm still very skeptical that a less powerful, heavier, car is faster.

Just for reference, the E86 was 3,200 pounds with 333hp and ran an 8:12 and the 3,100 pound S50B32 E36/8 M Coupe ran it in 8:22 with what I think I recall was 321hp, both with comically less capable tires than the PS2's of the 1M Coupe and the PSS of the M235i. Both earlier M Coupes, especially the Z3 have the aerodynamics of a barn.

[Rupes]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

It has been said explicitly that there will be no more naturally aspirated engines coming out of M. Emissions and fuel economy regulations prohibit the development of such an engine.

Then why can Porsche and pretty every other manufacturer still do it? The emissions and fuel economy stuff is garbage. BMW just sees a turbo as an easier way to get more power / greater MPG out of an engine.

[Joaco135]

At the end of the day we will take the M2 any which way BMW makes it with i4, i6, turbo or non-turbo, etc. why? Because it will be a true M car model with the HP that fits between the M235i and the M4. We can speculate all we want but at this time BMW has already or is near made up their mind on how the M2 will come out, if there is an M2 model to start with... just saying.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Rupes

Then why can Porsche and pretty every other manufacturer still do it? The emissions and fuel economy stuff is garbage. BMW just sees a turbo as an easier way to get more power / greater MPG out of an engine.

I'm repeating what BMW tells us; namely, SCOTT26. I'm not an automotive engineer, so I can't vouch for the validity of that claim, but I do know this: turbocharged engines are showing up everywhere. If you look at Porsche's most recently developed cars (e.g., the Macan), you'll see lots of turbocharging, as well as persistent rumors of an upcoming turbo H4 boxer engine that will see duty in the Boxster and Cayman.

It is not a false claim to say that emissions and fuel economy standards continue to grow more aggressive. It seems obvious that the days of the high-revving, naturally-aspirated performance engine are behind us.

http://flat6news.com/blog/porsche-tu...flat-4-engine/
http://www.carscoops.com/2013/12/por...der-boxer.html