[m_michael]

Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing. I much prefer the flatter M4 torque curve. But yeah, that's a kick in the pants kind of curve from the M2.

[M-Pilot]

This low end torque of N55 vs S55 has become one of the most popular topics recently I don't think different low end behavior has anything to do with engine itself. Early M3/M4 models had a higher low end torque as well. BMW changed this behavior via DME software updates in the past couple years. I posted about this in a different thread but will share it here as well:

Originally Posted by cntzl

This "lack of low end kick" issue is probably just because of the different tune. In other words, it's all software and not necessarily a bad thing. With the earlier versions S55 software in M3/M4s, there were several complaints about high torque available very early on hence affecting the power delivery and traction (unless you ran wider, stickier tires). Take a look at the dyno graph below showing torque (y-axis) vs engine speed (x-axis):

Torque:



BHP:



In this comparison, there are 4 different cars: Non-ZCP M4 with 2016 software, Non-ZCP M4 with 2017 sw, M4 ZCP with 2017 sw, and M4 CS with 2017 sw.

Based on the graph Non-ZCP M4 with 2016 sw and Non-ZCP M4 with 2017 sw make pretty much the same peak power. What's interesting is that the peak torque comes at about 2500rpm on the 2016 software whereas 2017 software delivers the peak torque right after 3000rpm. Also, 2016 sw makes 50-100lb-ft more than 2017 sw up until 2700rpm.

If you look at the F80 forum, many members who got a software update about ta year ago initially thought that BMW reduced the power in their cars and their cars became slower. However, it wasn't the case in reality. As someone who had experienced the both software versions, I can tell you that newer software resulted in much better power delivery even though it felt like you lost some low end torque. Long story short, I believe this is the case with M2C as well.

[nomoracin]

Originally Posted by ChrisK

Is your car EU spec or US spec? I didn't have that impression of the M2C after owning both cars.

US spec

[hellrotm]

Some other stock M2 N55 Dynojet numbers.


330.92whp/388.35wtq


329.45whp/362.11wtq (red line stage 1 VF tune)

[Karmic Man]

On the dyno graph from EAS it stated the car was running on 91 Octane...

So the car wasn't running on 93 octane?

If so the DME set the engine to run at lower ignition timing and more power would be available when running on 93 as the S55 was optimised for 93.

[Proctor750]

Originally Posted by FSU_Logan

I honestly cannot believe people care about sub 3k rpm this much lol

Try driving an s14, fun starts at 5k

[FSU_Logan]

Originally Posted by Proctor750

Try driving an s14, fun starts at 5k

Lol, or a S2k. My racecar hits full boost by 3300, but that is intentional as it is a drag car and the converter will push through about then... so lines up pretty well.

[Davil]

Originally Posted by Karmic Man

On the dyno graph from EAS it stated the car was running on 91 Octane...

So the car wasn't running on 93 octane?

If so the DME set the engine to run at lower ignition timing and more power would be available when running on 93 as the S55 was optimised for 93.

I think that’s a California thing isn’t it?
It would have to make a difference.

Still, over 600 torques is massive. That’s nearly double my old e36 M3!

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by Karmic Man

On the dyno graph from EAS it stated the car was running on 91 Octane...

So the car wasn't running on 93 octane?

If so the DME set the engine to run at lower ignition timing and more power would be available when running on 93 as the S55 was optimised for 93.

Yes California has sh*t 91oct. Along with some other western states.

[B58togo]

Originally Posted by cntzl

No, these are WHP (power at the wheels) results as opposed to BHP (power at the crank) results from G-Power.

397whp with 10% drivetrain loss would approximately correspond to 440HP at the crank (and 10% drivetrain loss is a conservative number).

But these are STD numbers. That 440 quickly becomes ~425 BHP when using SAE correction and the 397 becomes ~383 WHP. STD correction is just a way to inflate the numbers to appeal to people who don't know any better. It's almost as bad as throwing out uncorrected numbers on a 45 degree day with no humidity, on a Dynojet at 500' below sea level.

(Ok, maybe not quite that bad)

[chris719]

Originally Posted by FSU_Logan

I honestly cannot believe people care about sub 3k rpm this much lol

I know, right? The M2C makes more starting at approx 2700 RPM. I'm not even sure it's really a good thing to make a ton that low, these cars have enough trouble putting it down as it is.

[M-Pilot]

Originally Posted by B58togo

But these are STD numbers. That 440 quickly becomes ~425 BHP when using SAE correction and the 397 becomes ~383 WHP. STD correction is just a way to inflate the numbers to appeal to people who don't know any better. It's almost as bad as throwing out uncorrected numbers on a 45 degree day with no humidity, on a Dynojet at 500' below sea level.

(Ok, maybe not quite that bad)

100% correct! Most of the dynos I have seen on this forum are STD with smoothing 5 for the reasons you mentioned probably (you'll rarely see a Mustang dyno plot on this forum ). Dynos are great to find out the gains from a tune/mod with before and after runs. Similarly, I also like seeing different cars on the same dyno, just like the dyno plots in this thread. Whether they are in SAE or STD, I'm more interested in comparing the area under curve or delta between two curves rather than peak numbers (and I mentioned this in an earlier post). That being said, how the car delivers the power is more important than peak HP/tq numbers IMO. Again, maybe the units are not in SAE in these plots but I think they still give a good idea in terms comparing these 3 models (M2, M2C, and M4) since the same conditions apply to all of them.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by chris719

I know, right? The M2C makes more starting at approx 2700 RPM. I'm not even sure it's really a good thing to make a ton that low, these cars have enough trouble putting it down as it is.

Going back to the M3/M4 launch, that actually was the complaint from early owners and reviewers of the car. I remember some owners asking tuners for a fix, a more linear powerband tune. The original base M3/M4 was a handful at low rpm’s, almost evil in damp condition. BMW has since listened and finely tuned the S55(rolling out software updates). Now with the recent M3/M4 CS, which has even more power but is credited for its smooth and linear power delivery.

[D22M2]

Low-end torque punch is obvious on the M2 compare to my (long gone ) F80 m3 - M2 is definitely a lot more fun on the streets

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by Aboen

Low-end torque punch is obvious on the M2 compare to my (long gone ) F80 m3 - M2 is definitely a lot more fun on the streets

If your just going to daily these cars. Car & Driver makes a strong case to buy the B58 M240i. If it is a dual purpose car(daily/track), M2C seems like a no brainer...with the more playful powerband and ungraded cooling.

[M2C_PLUS]

Originally Posted by FSU_Logan

I honestly cannot believe people care about sub 3k rpm this much lol

This exactly :

[D22M2]

Originally Posted by hellrotm

If your just going to daily these cars. Car & Driver makes a strong case to buy the B58 M240i. If it is a dual purpose car(daily/track), M2C seems like a no brainer...with the more playful powerband and ungraded cooling.

I could agree with that - m240i is an awesome car for sure. Already have an M2 and have an M2c on order but i’m not sure if I can live with the huge muffler after seeing it in person, I mean… I want my car to be bad ass but I want it to look good also. Might just hold off and see what the S58 M2 is all about and enjoy what I have for a daily. I don’t track my cars, don’t have that kind of spare time. One thing I know for sure, my M2 is a lot more fun to drive to my brothers RS3

[FSU_Logan]

Originally Posted by cntzl

100% correct! Most of the dynos I have seen on this forum are STD with smoothing 5 for the reasons you mentioned probably (you'll rarely see a Mustang dyno plot on this forum ). Dynos are great to find out the gains from a tune/mod with before and after runs. Similarly, I also like seeing different cars on the same dyno, just like the dyno plots in this thread. Whether they are in SAE or STD, I'm more interested in comparing the area under curve or delta between two curves rather than peak numbers (and I mentioned this in an earlier post). That being said, how the car delivers the power is more important than peak HP/tq numbers IMO. Again, maybe the units are not in SAE in these plots but I think they still give a good idea in terms comparing these 3 models (M2, M2C, and M4) since the same conditions apply to all of them.

I've asked for SAE numbers ~ 3 times. They won't provide them. I assume 3% loss just due the conditions in California. That makes the numbers, well, pretty tame.

[M-Pilot]

Originally Posted by FSU_Logan

I've asked for SAE numbers ~ 3 times. They won't provide them. I assume 3% loss just due the conditions in California. That makes the numbers, well, pretty tame.

Define tame. Even with 380whp SAE, this car is still underrated.

[FSU_Logan]

Originally Posted by cntzl

Define tame. Even with 380whp SAE, this car is still underrated.

Absolutely.

Nothing we can do but mod the car... which I am all for!
I feel for those who want to keep warranty, though. If there was a way for them to get the CS flash, it'd be what, 460whp?

[FSU_Logan]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteM2

CS cars are 450bhp not whp

That stupid calculated BHP dyno had me flustered. Good call.

[Davil]

Originally Posted by Karmic Man

On the dyno graph from EAS it stated the car was running on 91 Octane...

So the car wasn't running on 93 octane?

If so the DME set the engine to run at lower ignition timing and more power would be available when running on 93 as the S55 was optimised for 93.

Noticed this. 93 US is same as our 98 isn’t it?