[aerokubectl]

Originally Posted by Crowden

Yeah, but you work from home.

No creep?

[hoyasaxa]

Are the M2 and M2C factory rubber the same? The new Michelins are substantially better than the PSS. I'm a little surprised to see a 4.0 0-60. IIRC, the OG M2 has published magazine times of 3.9 (although that could be differences in roll-out).

[Richbot]

lol

No quicker, except it’s 2.4 seconds quicker 60-130

CD has really borked their own website lately

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by hoyasaxa

Are the M2 and M2C factory rubber the same? The new Michelins are substantially better than the PSS. I'm a little surprised to see a 4.0 0-60. IIRC, the OG M2 has published magazine times of 3.9 (although that could be differences in roll-out).

Both are shod with the same 245-265/35R19 PSS.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by cntzl

Results are results. There isn't much to say about them but I wish they compared these two cars side by side on the same day instead of going back to their test from two years ago. Who knows, maybe the the gap was going to be larger or maybe OG M2 was going to perform even better. This type of testing isn't ideal, that's for sure. I'm not even going to comment on the article itself.

Also, this comparison reminded me of their M4 ZCP test results (from 2016), which they compared to their M4 Base test results (from 2015). Even though M4 ZCP has extra 19HP and slightly more rubber, Base M4 did better in almost all categories than the ZCP:

https://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1315511

C/D TEST RESULTS for M4 ZCP w/ DCT:

Zero to 60 mph: 3.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.6 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 14.8 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 21.9 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.4 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.1 sec @ 119 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 163 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 151 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.99 g

C/D TEST RESULTS for M4 Base w/ DCT:

Zero to 60 mph: 3.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.5 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 14.5 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 20.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.0 sec @ 119 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 163 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 150 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.00g

That's because the M3/4 competition pack is not really any faster than the base M3/4 off the line, which is highly dependent on traction. The added power is all on the top-end and it is reflected in the C&D results (faster to 150mph). The same holds true for the M2 vs M2C.

[M-Pilot]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

That's because the M3/4 competition pack is not really any faster than the base M3/4 off the line, which is highly dependent on traction. The added power is all on the top-end and it is reflected in the C&D results (faster to 150mph). The same holds true for the M2 vs M2C.

Yes, it's true for M4 vs M4 Comp but not really for M2 vs M2C. M2C makes more power and torque than M2 after 2.5K RPM till redline but the earlier peak torque on M2 along with less weight (significantly less unsprung weight as well) helps the M2. If this test was done in EU where you can configure your M2C almost same as OG M2 (with blue brakes, 437M wheels, non-M seats etc), I think the results would be different.

[dezzracer]

Originally Posted by Crowden

Yeah, but you work from home.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by cntzl

Yes, it's true for M4 vs M4 Comp but not really for M2 vs M2C. M2C makes more power and torque than M2 after 2.5K RPM till redline but the earlier peak torque on M2 along with less weight (significantly less unsprung weight as well) helps the M2. If this test was done in EU where you can configure your M2C almost same as OG M2 (with blue brakes, 437M wheels, non-M seats etc), I think the results would be different.

I think we are saying the same thing. In the C&D results, the 0-60mph are similar for the the M2 and M2C mostly because both are traction limited. However, the M2C significantly out accelerates the M2 beyond 60mph because of it's power advantage. I think the C&D results are representative, it's just their title caption that is misleading ("same acceleration"). And yes, if the M2C were optioned with less weight, the difference would be even greater.

[arciga18]

Originally Posted by chris719

M cars have issues, but cooling is almost never one of them.

My Z4M took a long time to reach operating oil temp. Sometimes I would make it to the office and it wouldn't quite be there.

He is saying your car never warmed up on your drive to the office because your work from home.

[dmboone25]

Originally Posted by spetsnazos

lol at the noob article saying that the M2C has poor cooling that's why the boost is lower...

I would say cooling is a nothingburger on this car. If anything, it's hard to get it up to operating temps quickly after starting.

The F80 is the same way - just how the S55 works I guess.

[NYAWE60]

Originally Posted by chris719

Weak article mostly. It trapped 3 mph higher, which is exactly what I would expect from a small boost in power. Zero to 60 needs to go away for RWD cars. This car is traction limited.

Agreed. Because you know, everyone is using every stop light and situation to test their 0-60 time. It's a decent indicator but it shouldn't have the gravity it does in today's world. Want fast 0-60? Buy an AWD, automatic, electric vehicle. Want fun? Anything in under 5 seconds with a stick and RWD will be fun.

[Phatcat]

Originally Posted by chris719

M cars have issues, but cooling is almost never one of them.

My Z4M took a long time to reach operating oil temp. Sometimes I would make it to the office and it wouldn't quite be there.

Actually they do, heat soak happened to both my X5M and M5.

[andrettifan]

Originally Posted by bri1042

So few "instrument" reviews published on our cars (vs. the endless Youtube videos), it's hard to tell who had a bad day, tested at odd temps, if the S55's advantages just weren't reached, or what. .1 or .3 seconds here or there are such small amounts of time that can lost or gained in so many ways.

I think we might need robot car testers and bio-dome-enclosed test tracks to cut down on variables or we'll all have to stop worrying about it so much. Oh, and only one tire manufacturer with one tire model will be allowed to put tires on all cars for testing.

I used to enjoy these articles and the debates they caused, but I've been burned out on the whole thing a bit by the near-hate back and forth from the OG M2 vs. M2C arguments, and the drive-by sniping from some folk who don't own either one. A lot of it still seems to be the Fast and the Furious affect on car culture. I really don't remember a .1 second quarter mile win being taken so seriously before that movie, but maybe I just knew nice people when I spent more time on tracks in the pre-internet days.

I guess I just never did live my life a 1/4 mile at a time. Drive happy, folk.

Amen!

[chris719]

Originally Posted by arciga18

He is saying your car never warmed up on your drive to the office because your work from home.

I know. Is it supposed to be funny or something? I have a short commute... but it’s not indoors.

[M-Pilot]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I think we are saying the same thing. In the C&D results, the 0-60mph are similar for the the M2 and M2C mostly because both are traction limited. However, the M2C significantly out accelerates the M2 beyond 60mph because of it's power advantage. I think the C&D results are representative, it's just their title caption that is misleading ("same acceleration"). And yes, if the M2C were optioned with less weight, the difference would be even greater.

I thought you meant the added power for M2C is all on the top-end as well, hence my comment But yea, we are on the same page

[Fugly M3]

I was a little disappointed by the seemingly minimal difference between the OG and M2C in this test. I agree it needed to be more extensive. The figure eight that MT does will be interesting.

In any event, there are things to like about each car. I think the S55 and the seats are obvious wins for the M2C. I may be in the minority, but I think the old school grill on the OG M2 is cleaner. It's also not nearly as portly as the M2C. Finally, while better than the F80/82/83 iterations, I am not convinced the M2C sounds better than the OG M2.

I was trying really hard not to say anything about the reverse fupa on the M2C, but alas, there it is. Some things just can't be unseen.

[CSBM5]

This was discussed in another thread including the misleading title to the article that their own data shows is completely untrue. I'll just copy/paste my post from the other thread:

Originally Posted by CSBM5

It's hilarious that C&D titled their test like that. I assume they're laughing at threads like these where nobody bothered to fact check their own numbers.

From their own published test data for the M2 vs the M2C:

0-100mph 10.2, 9.1 seconds
0-130mph 19.1, 15.9 seconds
60-130mph 15.0, 11.9 seconds

Of course it's not the least bit surprising the 0-60 times are very close as that is so much dependent on hooking up the tires, and the M2C has a ton of torque and it's pretty hard to hook the tires cleanly (from personal experience) as it comes on so hard.

So their own test data show the M2C to be significantly faster. The M2C will open up an ever increasing gap that becomes huge.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Phatcat

Actually they do, heat soak happened to both my X5M and M5.

Didn't say it was impossible. M3 and M4, which are much more relevant because they use the same engine as the M2C do not really have problems with it stock.

Even in your M5 I bet it wasn't like a C7 Z06 that really cannot sustain its straight line performance even on the street in some cases.

[GMe90]

This M2 vs. M2C debate reminds me so much of the e9# 328i vs. 335i debates from about 10 years ago. The M2/M2C is a great car that is way too fast for the road. Who cares about a few tenths of a second.

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by GMe90

This M2 vs. M2C debate reminds me so much of the e9# 328i vs. 335i debates from about 10 years ago. The M2/M2C is a great car that is way too fast for the road. Who cares about a few tenths of a second.

Well...Not about the few tenths, but 60-130mph the M2Comp is 3s faster.
And that's what I'm feeling vs my former OG M2 and I like that and I do that stuff overhere(which is possible living in this area of our country and living about an hour driving from the German Autobahn )
But still, traction issues on both M2 to 60mph and beyond that M2C is king. It's not a few tenths

M2C is pulling way faster beyond 120mph to 150mph FWIW....

I remember 328 Fxx vs 335 Fxx discussion. How a 240Hp 'lightweight' 4 pot can be as fast as a 'heavyweight' 6 pot 306HP car. From 0-60 it could, but for the rest not so much


But anyway, I need some coffee first. 6:30AM CET

Cheers
Robin

[SeanWRT]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

Well...Not about the few tenths, but 60-130mph the M2Comp is 3s faster.
And that's what I'm feeling vs my former OG M2 and I like that and I do that stuff overhere(which is possible living in this area of our country and living about an hour driving from the German Autobahn )
But still, traction issues on both M2 to 60mph and beyond that M2C is king. It's not a few tenths

M2C is pulling way faster beyond 120mph to 150mph FWIW....

I remember 328 Fxx vs 335 Fxx discussion. How a 240Hp 'lightweight' 4 pot can be as fast as a 'heavyweight' 6 pot 306HP car. From 0-60 it could, but for the rest not so much


But anyway, I need some coffee first. 6:30AM CET

Cheers
Robin

Robin, I am hyper accurate and anal about these times and know one thing or two about it.

In 100-200kph, M2C is 1~1.2s quicker. And thus will not be 3s quicker in 60-130mph. More like 1.5s max.

C/D screwed up big time with this level of work. Do a google search you'll find so much more insightful critic on it. The writer should resign.

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by SeanWRT

Robin, I am hyper accurate and anal about these times and know one thing or two about it.

In 100-200kph, M2C is 1~1.2s quicker. And thus will not be 3s quicker in 60-130mph. More like 1.5s max.

C/D screwed up big time with this level of work. Do a google search you'll find so much more insightful critic on it. The writer should resign.

in bold: No.

I will explain:
100-200kmh is NOT 60-130mph...

100-200kmh= 62-124mph

--->96.5kmh-209kmh= 60-130mph

That's a huge difference....

And the M2c just way faster beyond 200kmh(124mph) where it counts in this case.

It's time the USA is going to start working with METRIC numbers...

Cheers
Robin