[W///]

Originally Posted by Mark's M

So I'm counting on your eagle eye Adam to see if any of the pics might give up a clue. I looked real close at the red/blue mules but nothing to indicate anything but...a roof. I think this'll be tougher than your dissection of the camo wraps but if anyone can do it, it's you. Hey, agree with your Ford thoughts. GT350 "might be" a consideration but I'm a bimmer diehard and it'd be tough to make the switch. But oh that sound......

If it had a CF roof, you'd think they'd be the newer design with the double bubble roof (look at the M3/4/6). Historically, if BMW was going to hide the roof, they would camo it and wouldn't care if it was a surprise or not. We shall see I guess.

Personally, it's not a deal breaker for me, but I'd absolutely love to see a CF roof because I'm for sure going with a light + metallic paint, so the roof would be a nice contrast.

If the car starts at low $50k, is more or less an M235i puffed up visually with M3/4 drivetrain and suspension, I'd be OK with that. I can certainly hope for more, but that's what I'm more or less comfortable with

P.S. I'm not getting rid of my E92 M3, so the GT350 would be a little redundant for me. I'm open to ideas though, I haven't been able to think of another car I'd want as much as the M2. F80 maybe if the M2 fails miserably.

[Mark's M]

Originally Posted by W///

If it had a CF roof, you'd think they'd be the newer design with the double bubble roof (look at the M3/4/6). Historically, if BMW was going to hide the roof, they would camo it and wouldn't care if it was a surprise or not. We shall see I guess.

Personally, it's not a deal breaker for me, but I'd absolutely love to see a CF roof because I'm for sure going with a light + metallic paint, so the roof would be a nice contrast.

If the car starts at low $50k, is more or less an M235i puffed up visually with M3/4 drivetrain and suspension, I'd be OK with that. I can certainly hope for more, but that's what I'm more or less comfortable with

P.S. I'm not getting rid of my E92 M3, so the GT350 would be a little redundant for me. I'm open to ideas though, I haven't been able to think of another car I'd want as much as the M2. F80 maybe if the M2 fails miserably.

I loved the flat CF roof on my M3 and actually don't care for the sculpted "bubble" look on the new ones. Frankly I think the 2er's greenhouse height is tall enough and a bubbled roofline wouldn't do the car justice IMO.

Re your Mustang comment....drove a new GT a few weeks ago. Solid, quick as the mags say but it felt a bit big. And the view over the hood - non existent, felt like I was navigating an '80's luxo-barge until I got used to it. Would no doubt be able to get accustomed to a larger car again but the 2er 's size is just so damned perfect.

[bladeomatic]

Originally Posted by gbgupta92795

Cant wait to pair this against an e46 m3.

Shouldn't be close.

Other than the "rawness" that the e46 posses, an M235i can match an e46 around a track.

Lighten the body, add ~50 more hp, tighten the suspension, fatten the rubber and add a LSD and it should be lights out in an M2.

As I've said elsewhere, even if price were the same, I'd take an M2 over an M4 any day of the week. It may not have times that quite match it's bigger brother but if you take the fun factor and balance of the M235i and add a dollop more of giddyup to it, you are going to have one special car.

[UpNcOmINg!]

Too much excite!!!
Neeed. More!!!!

[Glassjaw047]

Originally Posted by acey81

Some speculation. Looks like BMW might do a BMW 1M type of transformation of the 2-series "M2". No CF-roof, probably not as extensive changes to the chassis as the M3 / M4 (rear axle subframe bolted directly to the chassis etc), a tuned N55 engine but probably a M-diff and DCT.

As the 1M, will probably be a very fun car. But without the limited numbers and the novelty of being the first M with a turbo, will it be special enough?

Really looking forward to seeing it in the flesh!

First M with a turbo? M3, M4, M5, M6, X5M & X6M all have turbos silly! :P

[Colinv6]

Originally Posted by Glassjaw047

First M with a turbo? M3, M4, M5, M6, X5M & X6M all have turbos silly! :P

He was referring to the 1M

[W///]

Originally Posted by Mark's M

I loved the flat CF roof on my M3 and actually don't care for the sculpted "bubble" look on the new ones. Frankly I think the 2er's greenhouse height is tall enough and a bubbled roofline wouldn't do the car justice IMO.

Re your Mustang comment....drove a new GT a few weeks ago. Solid, quick as the mags say but it felt a bit big. And the view over the hood - non existent, felt like I was navigating an '80's luxo-barge until I got used to it. Would no doubt be able to get accustomed to a larger car again but the 2er 's size is just so damned perfect.

I didn't even bother test driving it after I sat in one. Just way too big. Kind of had the same feeling in the F80, but at least that's practical. The Mustang is huge (it does have a giant trunk, I will admit), but the rear seats are worthless.

While there's no denying that the GT350's will be monsters, and I would love to have a high performance car like that, I'm more looking for something on the nimble side, that is compact and just fun. So cars like the M2, Cayman, or cars that would be Z3M's or S2k's.

[dmboone25]

Originally Posted by W///

I'm also speculating, but I think you are spot on. I feel like we would have seen a CF roof by now if it was going to be offered.

I've said it since the beginning that I'd be surprised if we saw CF. But I do think that the M2 will essentially just get a driveline straight from the M3/4, probably just without the CF driveshaft. It better be the direct mounted subframe though. Hell I actually thought they were just going to offer it with 6MT or 8AT.

No doubt that if this is the case, this will turn off a lot of potential forum members. Personally, I'd be OK with that setup. It'll all come down to pricing then. If that is what's going to be offered, it better start in the high 40s or very low 50s. We shall see I guess

I think the lack of the CF should give us some insight into where BMW intends to position the M2 - because the loss in weight is at a higher point in the car, I am not so sure that we should really care - I can't imagine that the center of gravity for the car is too much different for a steel roof vs. a CF one. Loss of weight lower in the car, would to me, make more impact. But I could be compeltely wrong about that.

Back to the positioning viewpoint - the lack of the CF is likely to be the case throughout the car - combined with the fact that we aren't getting the S55, it actually makes me MORE hopeful that this car comes in at a lower price point.

Plus, you can always do the sunroof delete and wrap your roof. Not as cool, I know, but would look the part.

[Adem1534]

Originally Posted by dmboone25

I think the lack of the CF should give us some insight into where BMW intends to position the M2 - because the loss in weight is at a higher point in the car, I am not so sure that we should really care - I can't imagine that the center of gravity for the car is too much different for a steel roof vs. a CF one. Loss of weight lower in the car, would to me, make more impact. But I could be compeltely wrong about that.

Back to the positioning viewpoint - the lack of the CF is likely to be the case throughout the car - combined with the fact that we aren't getting the S55, it actually makes me MORE hopeful that this car comes in at a lower price point.

Plus, you can always do the sunroof delete and wrap your roof. Not as cool, I know, but would look the part.

From an engineering perspective, It's actually loss of weight towards the top of the car that makes the biggest difference. Weight towards the top of the vehicle applies a greater torque to the bottom of the wheels throughout a turn, because the roof for example is farther from the contact point between the wheels and the ground. That's why carbon fiber hood and roof are the usually first places to get the treatment, however they are large panels so if cost is an issue they may not be CF. I can explain further why the CF is more effective higher up on the car if you'd like, but I'd have to draw some sketches.

EDIT: Sometimes its good in engineering to look at the extreme. Think of a tall truck, how it tips over easier. Its because the weight is distributed to higher points off the ground, so turning which is non linear acceleration, means the force due to this non linear acceleration is farther from the ground. And torque = F x Distance. So the increase in distance increases the torque, which then tips the car over.

Is that more clear now?

P.S. if there is any opening in engineering at BMW I will literally give an arm and a leg for a lead into a job there.

[W///]

Originally Posted by dmboone25

I think the lack of the CF should give us some insight into where BMW intends to position the M2 - because the loss in weight is at a higher point in the car, I am not so sure that we should really care - I can't imagine that the center of gravity for the car is too much different for a steel roof vs. a CF one. Loss of weight lower in the car, would to me, make more impact. But I could be compeltely wrong about that.

Back to the positioning viewpoint - the lack of the CF is likely to be the case throughout the car - combined with the fact that we aren't getting the S55, it actually makes me MORE hopeful that this car comes in at a lower price point.

Plus, you can always do the sunroof delete and wrap your roof. Not as cool, I know, but would look the part.

Right, exactly. There's still hope, but like I said, it's not a deal breaker for me. And I'll be honest, it's not like I can tell between a CF roof and non-sunroof steel roof car. I just think it looks awesome. It really gives my E92 that aggressive look.

I'd probably leave it just as it is, and concentrate on getting a CF lip and trunk spoiler. No wrap for me.

P.S. I've been reading up on the base 2er forum, and it seems like HK might not be even worth the money as it's really not a huge upgrade. So I might literally end up with a stripper if there's also no LED.

M2 + Metallic paint + 6MT = done

[Adem1534]

Originally Posted by Mark's M

So I'm counting on your eagle eye Adam to see if any of the pics might give up a clue. I looked real close at the red/blue mules but nothing to indicate anything but...a roof. I think this'll be tougher than your dissection of the camo wraps but if anyone can do it, it's you. Hey, agree with your Ford thoughts. GT350 "might be" a consideration but I'm a bimmer diehard and it'd be tough to make the switch. But oh that sound......

My name is Alex my username just includes part of my last name, lol. Everyone calls me Adem or Adam haha.

Thanks for the comments! I use my engineering background to analyze every little detail, because sometimes, the details that are not so prevalent contain the greatest insight

Regarding the carbon fiber roof, I do think there is one connection people are not making.

Its the 2 series mule that was being used to test for the future Z/toyota car.

Why do I bring that car up, after it was determined the carbon fiber roof was just to lower the mules center of gravity for testing for the Z?

Because that CF roof was double bubble. It was a beautifully sculpted double bubble roof that was well fitted into the two series frame. I bring this up because the double bubble aspect is not necessary for testing because it would lower the CG by a very insignificant amount. Instead of sculpting a beautiful dubble bubble roof, they could have just inserted simpler carbon fiber parts in a different part of the car, because like I said, the lower part of the dubble bubble roof would change the CG by less than a miniscule amount. The only thing that makes sense otherwise, is for head room increase due to the lower roofline of the mule. But we shall see!

I expect that the carbon fiber roof on the mule is going to be an option for the M2. Those are my thoughts at the moment. I also agree that they will surprise us with something. And I think that could be a surprise option.

[ChrisMT79]

The car hasn't even been released and it's already taking iconic status... Must... Have...

[JustChris]

Originally Posted by ChrisMT79

The car hasn't even been released and it's already taking iconic status... Must... Have...

It will definitely be the best M2 ever!

[ChrisMT79]

Originally Posted by M Car Chris

It will definitely be the best M2 ever!

That is a bold statement... I will circle back to this upon it's release *end sarcasm

[gaijin]

Originally Posted by M Car Chris

It will definitely be the best M2 ever!

Yes, it will be! Until the next one......

[JustChris]

Originally Posted by ChrisMT79

That is a bold statement... I will circle back to this upon it's release *end sarcasm

Well just a bit of fun, its also the worst M2 ever of course but my glass is 1/2 full for this car, can't wait to see it and drive it.

[W///]

Originally Posted by Adem1534

My name is Alex my username just includes part of my last name, lol. Everyone calls me Adem or Adam haha.

Thanks for the comments! I use my engineering background to analyze every little detail, because sometimes, the details that are not so prevalent contain the greatest insight

Regarding the carbon fiber roof, I do think there is one connection people are not making.

Its the 2 series mule that was being used to test for the future Z/toyota car.

Why do I bring that car up, after it was determined the carbon fiber roof was just to lower the mules center of gravity for testing for the Z?

Because that CF roof was double bubble. It was a beautifully sculpted double bubble roof that was well fitted into the two series frame. I bring this up because the double bubble aspect is not necessary for testing because it would lower the CG by a very insignificant amount. Instead of sculpting a beautiful dubble bubble roof, they could have just inserted simpler carbon fiber parts in a different part of the car, because like I said, the lower part of the dubble bubble roof would change the CG by less than a miniscule amount. The only thing that makes sense otherwise, is for head room increase due to the lower roofline of the mule. But we shall see!

I expect that the carbon fiber roof on the mule is going to be an option for the M2. Those are my thoughts at the moment. I also agree that they will surprise us with something. And I think that could be a surprise option.

The headroom doesn't increase between a double bubble roof and a "regular" non sunroof car. Here's a pic of an M4 with CF roof, but as you can see, the headliner is flat without creases:


The F30/2 with sunroof delete looks the same as well, so the double bubble CF roof doesn't provide any extra headroom.

I couldn't tell you why that mule had CF roof though. I didn't even notice if the green house was changed, just that the wheel base was shorter.

[dmboone25]

Originally Posted by Adem1534

From an engineering perspective, It's actually loss of weight towards the top of the car that makes the biggest difference. Weight towards the top of the vehicle applies a greater torque to the bottom of the wheels throughout a turn, because the roof for example is farther from the contact point between the wheels and the ground. That's why carbon fiber hood and roof are the usually first places to get the treatment, however they are large panels so if cost is an issue they may not be CF. I can explain further why the CF is more effective higher up on the car if you'd like, but I'd have to draw some sketches.

EDIT: Sometimes its good in engineering to look at the extreme. Think of a tall truck, how it tips over easier. Its because the weight is distributed to higher points off the ground, so turning which is non linear acceleration, means the force due to this non linear acceleration is farther from the ground. And torque = F x Distance. So the increase in distance increases the torque, which then tips the car over.

Is that more clear now?

P.S. if there is any opening in engineering at BMW I will literally give an arm and a leg for a lead into a job there.

Thanks for the education - this information is logical to me. Bascially, any weight that is significant in amount AND distance from the center of the car's gravity has a negative impact on performance - yes?

Keep sending them the resume my man - you never know.

Originally Posted by W///

Right, exactly. There's still hope, but like I said, it's not a deal breaker for me. And I'll be honest, it's not like I can tell between a CF roof and non-sunroof steel roof car. I just think it looks awesome. It really gives my E92 that aggressive look.

I'd probably leave it just as it is, and concentrate on getting a CF lip and trunk spoiler. No wrap for me.

P.S. I've been reading up on the base 2er forum, and it seems like HK might not be even worth the money as it's really not a huge upgrade. So I might literally end up with a stripper if there's also no LED.

M2 + Metallic paint + 6MT = done

I LOVE the look of the CF roof - there is something about that says the car means business - much more so than say a power bulge in the car's hood. It seems to signify that the particular company has taken the time to give a shit in the weight loss department.

And when you combine it with a lighter color, the contrast is really hot. Like an AW M2 with CF roof and glossy black 19s? Take my kidney now.

[Artemis]

The tow hook is gone.

[SmallTownBoy]

Originally Posted by Adem1534

Oh, I agree completely.

But if the M2 were solely coming with 19 inch wheels, like many people have thought, then this wouldn't be the case. No point in testing vehicle dynamic feel with a different wheel size, as the different wheels sizes provided different traction dynamics, especially in the snow.

Sure there's a point. The 18" wheels have tires with a taller sidewall than the 19s, thereby keeping the same overall diameter. As long as they stay within about 3% of stock, there shouldn't be any issue.

Part of the testing on the 18s, with the "taller" tire size, would be to verify that the dynamics (and sensor readings) are the same as the 19s with the lower aspect tire.

Go back and check the two wheel close-ups in post #24. You can see that the tires on the 18s have a taller sidewall.

[Adem1534]

Originally Posted by dmboone25

Thanks for the education - this information is logical to me. Bascially, any weight that is significant in amount AND distance from the center of the car's gravity has a negative impact on performance - yes?

Keep sending them the resume my man - you never know.

It is not the distance from a given part to the center of gravity, but the distance of the center of gravity from the ground. Weight below the center of gravity will lower the center of gravity, but also increase the torque caused by non linear acceleration (due to a greater force to achieve the same non linear acceleration (f=m*a)), so it's not always the best bet because although the distance (d) may drop in the equation torque = f*d, the force will rise. It's a tricky situation. Actually, in 99% cases it isn't beneficial to just add weight lower to the ground because it also increases the overall mass of the car for linear acceleration as well.

Removing weight is best for turning when it is above the center of gravity that is created by the main frame of the car, because that lessens the distance between the CoG and the ground. So overall, I'd say "yes" to your comment.

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by sebaflex

i really like this car. let's hope the engine doesn't disappoint.

Since you made this comment, I am curious , what was the last engine in an M car to " disappoint " ?