[ORIGIN M.]

Let's hope for a twin turbo.

[Artemis]

C'mon, dear forum fellows: it ain't the precise number of hp/bhp that's of major importance, but what you can do with it.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by red-sauerkraut

Let's hope for a twin turbo.

Read the lips of the ///M Boss Nitschke in a recent interview:
http://f10.m5post.com/forums/showpos...46&postcount=1

[ORIGIN M.]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Read the lips of the ///M Boss Nitschke in a recent interview:
http://f10.m5post.com/forums/showpos...46&postcount=1

Do you mind paraphrasing, I am at work and it's a long read, and considering, I am not that multitasked at the moment.

Thanks!

[ORIGIN M.]

Originally Posted by Artemis

C'mon, dear forum fellows: it ain't the precise number of hp/bhp that's of major importance, but what you can do with it.

That's what she said.

[dmboone25]

Originally Posted by Adem1534

I feel like people keep forgetting how small the 2 series really is. Pictures don't capture it's shape/proportions.

It's funny you say that - it "looks" huge to me.

I also had 2 E82 135s. Lined up next to one another, they (M235 and E82 135) are very very close, size-wise. But they don't feel like they're basically the same size.

The hood of my M235 seems like it is 15 feet long. I don't especially like that.

Just my $.02...

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by Adem1534

I feel like people keep forgetting how small the 2 series really is. Pictures don't capture it's shape/proportions.

Originally Posted by dmboone25

It's funny you say that - it "looks" huge to me.
I also had 2 E82 135s. Lined up next to one another, they (M235 and E82 135) are very very close, size-wise. But they don't feel like they're basically the same size.
The hood of my M235 seems like it is 15 feet long. I don't especially like that.
Just my $.02...

Length:

• 1M: 172.4in / 4,380mm
• M235i: 174.5in / 4,432mm.
• E46 M3: 176.8in / 4,491mm (2001-2003) and 176.9in / 4,493mm (2003–2006).

Here is to hoping that the M Division sticks to the "M2 length ≤ E46 M3 length" formula.

More size comparisons:
http://www.2addicts.com/forums/showp...84&postcount=1
http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showp...3&postcount=19

[Cavpilot2k]

I have to agree though, that when I tested the M235, it felt bigger than my 135 (and I mean physical size, not weight or handling manners). It is just surprising, considering how close they are in dimensions.

[Adem1534]

Originally Posted by dmboone25

It's funny you say that - it "looks" huge to me.

I also had 2 E82 135s. Lined up next to one another, they (M235 and E82 135) are very very close, size-wise. But they don't feel like they're basically the same size.

The hood of my M235 seems like it is 15 feet long. I don't especially like that.

Just my $.02...

Right, I'm just saying in pictures it looks even bigger, and after just looking at so many I tend to lose track of it's size until I see one again.

[ORIGIN M.]

Originally Posted by dmboone25

It's funny you say that - it "looks" huge to me.

I also had 2 E82 135s. Lined up next to one another, they (M235 and E82 135) are very very close, size-wise. But they don't feel like they're basically the same size.

The hood of my M235 seems like it is 15 feet long. I don't especially like that.

Just my $.02...

The hood on the 2er is about 2 inches higher than the 1er, starting from the A Pillar forward, that's why it feels like a larger car from the drivers seat.

[dmboone25]

Originally Posted by Adem1534

Right, I'm just saying in pictures it looks even bigger, and after just looking at so many I tend to lose track of it's size until I see one again.

We were agreeing my man.

[OrangeCrush]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Read the lips of the ///M Boss Nitschke in a recent interview:
http://f10.m5post.com/forums/showpos...46&postcount=1

I didn't see anything suggesting a twin turbo. I did see some love for the S55 though. What am I missing?

[ORIGIN M.]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrush

I didn't see anything suggesting a twin turbo. I did see some love for the S55 though. What am I missing?

Good to know I didn't see it either

[BimmerMat135]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

Sure, I can clear this up. Easily:

The author is an idiot.

Evidence:

- B57 is a diesel. S engines traditionally have model numbers of the mainstream engines they're based on, which is why we should expect S58 or (wouldn't that be fun?) S48, not S57.

- "M performance" models are not products of BMW M GmbH. They never get S engines.

- On the other hand, X4 M40i is indeed planned to get the same engine as M2, the top tune version of N55 I wrote about before.

Any possibility that the M2 would get it own engine based on the B58 that could be call S58? Maybe that what the article is about the 375hp engine could be the N55 and the 400hp an S58?

[Ramos]

Originally Posted by Cope

S57 would suggest its based off the N57... which is a diesel engine.

An N55 based engine has already been confirmed on this forum through a reliable source.

Oh yeah, the same reliable source that confirmed a 4 cylinder M2 for months !!

That reliable source, right?

[W///]

Originally Posted by Ramos

Oh yeah, the same reliable source that confirmed a 4 cylinder M2 for months !!

That reliable source, right?

You are talking about 2 completely different things. Scott said that the 4 cylinder engine was considered. The other guy that leaks all the engine codes and start of production was the one that said uprated N55. Look up his info, has he been wrong yet?

[technik330]

Originally Posted by W///

You are talking about 2 completely different things. Scott said that the 4 cylinder engine was considered. The other guy that leaks all the engine codes and start of production was the one that said uprated N55. Look up his info, has he been wrong yet?

Did you happen to catch where Scott chimed in and didn't refute the 'new' motor, only the launch info?

If he did at a later time, within this thread, then I stand corrected.

Regardless, I think it'd be hilarious if BMW offers the M2 with an 'uprated' N55, when they've had ample time to derive a proper motor for the car.

We can all agree that the N55 isn't the N54 and as such, why create an M2 to use an inferior motor to the previous 1M?

That's like taking a step forward to take two back.

To me, if the motor is simply an uprated N55, that would prove that BMW is truly using the M2 as a ramp for other M cars.

[W///]

Originally Posted by technik330

Did you happen to catch where Scott chimed in and didn't refute the 'new' motor, only the launch info?

If he did at a later time, within this thread, then I stand corrected.

Regardless, I think it'd be hilarious if BMW offers the M2 with an 'uprated' N55, when they've had ample time to derive a proper motor for the car.

We can all agree that the N55 isn't the N54 and as such, why create an M2 to use an inferior motor to the previous 1M?

That's like taking a step forward to take two back.

To me, if the motor is simply an uprated N55, that would prove that BMW is truly using the M2 as a ramp for other M cars.

The problem is that we have no idea what an uprated N55 entail. It could use parts from the S55 as far as we know.

[technik330]

Originally Posted by W///

The problem is that we have no idea what an uprated N55 entail. It could use parts from the S55 as far as we know.

You're correct, we have no idea what an uprated N55 would ultimately entail.

That said, if they go that route I'd just end up feeling like they half-assed the motor, when they've had since 2011 to put a proper motor together for this specific car.

Three years is ample time, wouldn't you agree?

[Cavpilot2k]

Originally Posted by W///

The problem is that we have no idea what an uprated N55 entail. It could use parts from the S55 as far as we know.

True.
Actually, in the strictest sense, the S55 is nothing more than an "uprated" N55, right? Same foundation.

[Wilson]

Originally Posted by technik330

Did you happen to catch where Scott chimed in and didn't refute the 'new' motor, only the launch info?

If he did at a later time, within this thread, then I stand corrected.

Regardless, I think it'd be hilarious if BMW offers the M2 with an 'uprated' N55, when they've had ample time to derive a proper motor for the car.

We can all agree that the N55 isn't the N54 and as such, why create an M2 to use an inferior motor to the previous 1M?

That's like taking a step forward to take two back.

To me, if the motor is simply an uprated N55, that would prove that BMW is truly using the M2 as a ramp for other M cars.

Ok, being new to BMW I don't mean to offend anyone when I say this, but what difference does it make whether its an N54, N55, S55 or XYZ123, apart from what I assume is tune ability?

Put another way, lets assume that given that exact same hp and torque figures, including curves for all three engines above, it matters nought. Say they all had 400 hp and 500 nm, identical power and torque curves, wouldn't we be happy with any one of the engines?

So ultimately its not the engine, its what BMW do to the engine to make it perform the way we want it to in the M2.

After all, we're not talking hand built bespoke engines such as Ferrari are we?

If the M2 comes with close to 400 hp and 500+ nm then I couldn't give a damn what letters / numbers the engine has.

[Cope]

Originally Posted by Ramos

Oh yeah, the same reliable source that confirmed a 4 cylinder M2 for months !!

That reliable source, right?

No, I was talking about this:

http://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=901686

I'm pretty sure he has yet to be wrong, he chimed in on this thread I believe on page 2.

Originally Posted by Wilson

Ok, being new to BMW I don't mean to offend anyone when I say this, but what difference does it make whether its an N54, N55, S55 or XYZ123, apart from what I assume is tune ability?

Put another way, lets assume that given that exact same hp and torque figures, including curves for all three engines above, it matters nought. Say they all had 400 hp and 500 nm, identical power and torque curves, wouldn't we be happy with any one of the engines?

So ultimately its not the engine, its what BMW do to the engine to make it perform the way we want it to in the M2.

After all, we're not talking hand built bespoke engines such as Ferrari are we?

If the M2 comes with close to 400 hp and 500+ nm then I couldn't give a damn what letters / numbers the engine has.

N54 is a twin turbo i6 (generally 2011 and earlier x35i models)
N55 is a single turbo twinscroll i6 (generally 2011 and later x35i models)
S55 is a twin turbo i6 based off of the N55 (used in the M3/4)

The N54 was the motor used in the 1M and is generally considered a more tune-able engine than the N55, albeit less reliable in stock form. The S55 was configured by the M division in such a way that it deviated so much from the original as to warrant a new engine code.

In response to the bolded text: that idealized situation just doesn't exist. There are way too many factors that are readily apparent if you were to drive them back to back that'll quickly make you play favorites. The sum of all of the parts put together is what matters, indeed one of the most important pieces is which engine they shove in up front.

M-cars almost always use S-derived engines. The 1M was a recent exception and that was probably due to time constraints... but the M2 is having significantly more development time which is probably why a lot of people are upset about the idea of the N55 being used.

And about hand built engines, there were actually hand built S engines, but they haven't done that for decades in production cars...