[doccyber]

Wow. Great write up and pictures and videos.

[BurpZilla]

Originally Posted by atxsk8r

+1

M2 CF trim to me is way better, glossy trim always looks lame and ghetto to me.

Video of the M4 exhaust sounds horrible but we already knew M2 sounds better

And the rolling punch against the CLA lol no contest

BUMP! The M2 sounds MUCH better!!

[Adem1534]

Originally Posted by mrduder

wow.... this is the first time i have to admit, the M4 sounds horrible compared. what a difference..... sounds like a rice rocket compared. but the M4 looks lightyears better to me. Like way better. I like how small the M2 is, but the M4 still looks better in every way. Inside and out.

Nahhh, disagree totally. M4 is way too long, the rear quarter looks like it was forgotten, and yeah, for fucks sake, it literally sounds like a lawn mower. Not even an exaggeration.

[BMWsully]

Originally Posted by Adem1534

Nahhh, disagree totally. M4 is way too long, the rear quarter looks like it was forgotten, and yeah, for fucks sake, it literally sounds like a lawn mower. Not even an exaggeration.

It's close, but the nod still goes to the M3/4 in the looks category. I like the M2 (and may pick one up) but it is just too awkward from some angles.

[edwinm3]

M2 seems like a fun budget M car.

[paradoxical3]

Originally Posted by edwinm3

M2 seems like a fun budget M car.

Agreed, and the M4 is a nice budget luxo barge

[edwinm3]

Originally Posted by paradoxical3

Agreed, and the M4 is a nice budget luxo barge

let's not forget to mention fast barge

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by trey100

I'm looking to get an M3 but I wouldn't assume the tuned N55 will be worse than the S55 in all cases. I posted this another time but look at the results of the road test (same magazine) of the M2 and M4. The overall acceleration all out has some differences but notice how the top gear acceleration is actually better in the M2. I've always suspected that the S55 gets started a little later as every dyno I have seen doesn't show a sharp increase in torque until 2500-3,000 rpm which is higher than the specs suggest. I have a gut feeling the N55 may spool faster even though it would defy logic as the S55 should be quicker to get going with 2 smaller turbos.

When you dig a little deeper technically, it is not that difficult to comprehend.

First, it is important to understand that BMW official power ratings are obtained in steady state, meaning the engine is left to stabilize for a little while at a given RPM before the power reading is taken at that RPM. When operating in transient mode, i.e. while accelerating, the engine can display quite a different behaviour. Forced induction engines such as the N55 and S55 will usually have less power in transient at low RPM but have more power at high RPM compared to when they operate in steady state. This is one of the big reasons those engines give the impression of being "under-rated".

That being said, both the M2's N55 and the S55 are of exact same displacement sharing the exact same bore and stroke, the fundamental difference between the two resides in the turbo arrangement. The twin turbo arrangement of the S55 is more suitable for greater power at higher RPM while the single twin scroll turbo of the N55 is more optimal at low RPM. This is also reflected in the official rating where the N55 torque peak starts at 1400rpm vs the 1850rpm of the S55. Now, when accelerating in the real world, since they are tuned for high RPM efficiency, the twin turbos of the S55 most probably suffer even more delay in spooling up at those lowly RPMs compared to the N55's single twin scroll, hence the slower top gear acceleration observed in the C&D test.

However, keep the engines in their power bands above 5500RPM (where it matters when driving on a track), and I am certain the S55 will display much less lag and much sharper response than the N55 in the M2.

[Karmic Man]

You can't take this review too seriously if the OP thinks the 1M with a manual gearbox is too hard to handle.

He stated that people in China trade the 1M very frequently once they found out they can't handle it so that doesn't make the 1M a great car. From this I don't think he is a hard-core driver so I will reserve my judgement on this vague review.

I would wait for a lot more international review to come by before jumping the wagon. Especially remember when the M3/M4 first came out all the review was very positive apart from some of the artificial sounds Journalist doesn't like but as time goes by their imperfection/flaws were also uncovered like traction issue and slow turn in.

People cross shopping the M2/M3/M4 should also wait for the competition package of the M3/M4 to come out and test drive before committing.

[Adem1534]

Originally Posted by edwinm3

M2 seems like a fun budget M car.

M2 seems like a fun M car.

Fixed it for you

[MCarsFan]

Originally Posted by Adem1534

M2 seems like a fun M car.

Fixed it for you

M2 to me is the M cars going back to their roots. Great driving and handling car. Reminds me of the E36

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by Adem1534

M2 seems like a fun M car.

Fixed it for you

Yep thanks.

Mine is €84K euros, not exacly budget in my book



Cheers
Robin

[trey100]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

When you dig a little deeper technically, it is not that difficult to comprehend.

First, it is important to understand that BMW official power ratings are obtained in steady state, meaning the engine is left to stabilize for a little while at a given RPM before the power reading is taken at that RPM. When operating in transient mode, i.e. while accelerating, the engine can display quite a different behaviour. Forced induction engines such as the N55 and S55 will usually have less power in transient at low RPM but have more power at high RPM compared to when they operate in steady state. This is one of the big reasons those engines give the impression of being "under-rated".

That being said, both the M2's N55 and the S55 are of exact same displacement sharing the exact same bore and stroke, the fundamental difference between the two resides in the turbo arrangement. The twin turbo arrangement of the S55 is more suitable for greater power at higher RPM while the single twin scroll turbo of the N55 is more optimal at low RPM. This is also reflected in the official rating where the N55 torque peak starts at 1400rpm vs the 1850rpm of the S55. Now, when accelerating in the real world, since they are tuned for high RPM efficiency, the twin turbos of the S55 most probably suffer even more delay in spooling up at those lowly RPMs compared to the N55's single twin scroll, hence the slower top gear acceleration observed in the C&D test.

However, keep the engines in their power bands above 5500RPM (where it matters when driving on a track), and I am certain the S55 will display much less lag and much sharper response than the N55 in the M2.

Thanks and nice detailed reply.

A couple of things:

1. I always thought the benefit of the 2 turbos was specifically to try and satisfy both low and high rom performance. Meaning rather than provide one larger turbocharger which would create more lag, you could sequence the 2 turbos so that both got spinning faster. Then again my memory tells me my old N54 had one turbo per 3 cylinders which means they weren't sequenced as I described above. 1/2 the turbocharger size for 1/2 the cylinders would seem to be similar to one that is double the size serving all 6 cylinders.

2. Even though with the N55 you could select a turbocharger to enhance low rpm torque over high rpm power, which is what you have eluded to, when I look at dynos of the S55 and N55, they have a very similar drop off n torque at high rpm. Meaning the shape is similar. Of course the S55 goes more rpm but not so much more than the N55. With your logic, I would have expected that the torque curves between the 2 engines have a less similar shape where you could see the benefit of the 2 turbos at high rpm. This is similar to the N54 where it had that same cliff. If I recall the S55 drops off to 300 lb ft of torque at redline while the N54/N55 (335 level) ends at 200 lb ft. Considering the S55 has roughly 100 lb ft of torque more, overall it seems like the same decline.

[M3M2R8Racer]

Thanks for posting! I can't stop till I was done with all the video and looking all pictures and text. Great job BMWSKY China!

[qnet]

Having the M235i, I like the M2's interior. The only difference is the blue stitching and the M colored stitching on the steering wheel. I do agree that the M4's interior is better IMO. The M4 looks like a bigger version of the M235i with a better-looking tail. The M2's exterior looks aggressive and unique.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by trey100

Thanks and nice detailed reply.

A couple of things:

1. I always thought the benefit of the 2 turbos was specifically to try and satisfy both low and high rom performance. Meaning rather than provide one larger turbocharger which would create more lag, you could sequence the 2 turbos so that both got spinning faster. Then again my memory tells me my old N54 had one turbo per 3 cylinders which means they weren't sequenced as I described above. 1/2 the turbocharger size for 1/2 the cylinders would seem to be similar to one that is double the size serving all 6 cylinders.

2. Even though with the N55 you could select a turbocharger to enhance low rpm torque over high rpm power, which is what you have eluded to, when I look at dynos of the S55 and N55, they have a very similar drop off n torque at high rpm. Meaning the shape is similar. Of course the S55 goes more rpm but not so much more than the N55. With your logic, I would have expected that the torque curves between the 2 engines have a less similar shape where you could see the benefit of the 2 turbos at high rpm. This is similar to the N54 where it had that same cliff. If I recall the S55 drops off to 300 lb ft of torque at redline while the N54/N55 (335 level) ends at 200 lb ft. Considering the S55 has roughly 100 lb ft of torque more, overall it seems like the same decline.

In general, you are correct in what you state about the trade-off between single turbos and twin turbos. However, here, it is important to look at the absolute power and torque values, not only the shape of the power/torque curves. This is why I specified that both engines share the same bore-stroke-displacement. From the same basic engine layout, the S55 makes 18% more peak torque than the M2's N55. At 7000RPM, the S55 makes 25% more. That is a substantial difference. To achieve this with a single turbo, you would need a much bigger turbo, which would kill response at both low and high RPM. Going with twin turbos allows to maintain the high RPM flow capabilities of a single LARGER turbo without sacrificing too much response at low RPM. That being said, the two smaller S55 turbos are still sized to favor higher RPM flow compared to the M2 N55 single unit, hence the better response of the M2 N55 at lower RPM.

[Verbiage]

Originally Posted by BMWsully

It's close, but the nod still goes to the M3/4 in the looks category. I like the M2 (and may pick one up) but it is just too awkward from some angles.

Agreed.

The more I look over it, the less attractive it becomes, especially now that I have looked at M2's and M3's an equal amount. definitely still aggressive for a small car, though.

Besides, I've always been a sedan guy, at heart.

[Hiigaran]

Originally Posted by M3M2R8Racer

Thanks for posting! I can't stop till I was done with all the video and looking all pictures and text. Great job BMWSKY China!

thx, i'm glad you enjoy it

[Bavarian Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Barbarian

How does the inner suspension and outer fender wheel clearance compare between the M2 vs. M4? From the underside photos they look very similar. I know M4 has the same wheel size but with 255 / 275 instead of 245 / 265. I'm ready to get some extra rubber on my M2 when it arrives...

?

[mxa121]

Great Pics and nice concise statements. Enjoyable.

Greatest small car BMW ever made - Not M235i - easily E46 M3.

Styling is all personal. I love how the proportions of the 2 are similar to the E46. It looks athletic. I just can't ignore how sleek, low, and wide that M4 is. I like it a lot. Road presence will go to the 4 every time, regardless of what looks "better".

Engine bay, wow the M4 has a nice engine bay. It looks like the designers never finished the M2 engine cover. The side of it is just a flat wall.

Can't wait to see these on the road.

[BruceM]

Originally Posted by BMWsully

It's close, but the nod still goes to the M3/4 in the looks category. I like the M2 (and may pick one up) but it is just too awkward from some angles.

For me, M3>M2>M4, in the looks department. But they all look good enough to make a decision based on other factors. Which any serious driver choosing among three decent-looking options would do anyway .

[FogCityM3]

Well there you have it, corroboration of what many have said all along that the M4 completely divorced the ///M division from emotion and now the M2 has brought back the "soul" and fun factor back into owning a BMW. So much for being "in GM's pocket" in the Camaro comparo, when the very same reviewers said the M2 fixes the M4's deficiencies, so it's not a GM issue/ad dollar/conspiracy/page hits issue, it's a BMW product issue. I get the new M3, one has to admit that for a sedan that can haul 5, it is a very practical fast car (and looks perfectly proportioned). While people claim the M3/M4 are more "luxurious" than the M2 there is more noise, vibration, and creaking than my E90 with coilovers and cup tires. This is where you can't even call the M4 a luxo coupe. I'm sure the M2 is not any better, but at least it has no pretenses, it's a car that is fun and in amateur hands, more capable on most tracks in the US than the M4. With the M3, you do get practicality, with the M4 you get a compromised vehicle that is too large but has limited practical use, doesn't really have a quiet/relaxing ride, looks too long in the rear (the M6 looks far better despite the larger size) and isn't as fun to drive as the M2.

BMW is probably risking some cannibalization with the M4, but probably realized, as Chris Harris admitted himself (despite loving the F8x platform as he personally owns an M3) that the car is one that reviewers "love to hate", that they really needed to do something to keep enthusiasts and journalists virtually universally acclaiming an ///M division product to help the brand. BMW scores a partial win by staying in the "fun to drive" conversation with other enthusiast vehicles, and M2 owners get an all-out victory!

One problem I have with this review is it looks like they lifted numbers from the earlier M2 test and re-used them, and used the M4's M4 vs Camaro lap footage (doesn't look like tested on same day). Don't think it matters much, as shows the tremendous capability of the M2 (even Pobst was surprised), as has been shown in other publications, but a head-to-head should be car vs car on the same day. Would have been easy enough to do.