[stylinexpat]

Was looking into a new M2 but then Nurburgring numbers along with 1/4 Mike numbers are not all that great. 0-60 numbers are same as new 2018 Golf R. The Golf R might even be quicker around Nurburgring track. 7:58 is not all that great

[mtoosexy]

Originally Posted by stylinexpat

Was looking into a new M2 but then Nurburgring numbers along with 1/4 Mike numbers are not all that great. 0-60 numbers are same as new 2018 Golf R. The Golf R might even be quicker around Nurburgring track. 7:58 is not all that great

True, but I bet the M2 is a Blast to drive!... Wouldn't catch me dead owning a Golf R.
I have not driven an M2 but i have driven a Golf R...Golf R=meh

My personal opinion: I dont care about times... if i did, i would buy an RS3 sedan instead of the M2 for ROUGHLY the same $.

Care about 1/4 mile times? Get a push button-go fast Tesla

Good luck in your car search!! I hope you find the right one for you!

[rouxeny]

Chasing numbers is an ultimately futile exercise.

If you like how the car looks, how it drives, and are willing to pay the money to own it, that's all you need.

[Green Pro Am]

Agree that chasing numbers is a never ending exercise.

From what I have seen, the numbers are not that close. Granted it is not a 2018 Golf, but the current cars are not in the same ballpark.

C&D BMW M2 DCT

C/D TEST RESULTS:

Zero to 60 mph: 4.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.6 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 18.3 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 28.6 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.4 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.4 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.5 sec @ 113 mph

Lightning lap time:

Class: LL2
Lap time: 3:01.9
Base price: $52,695
As-tested price: $54,495
365 hp • 3455 lb • 9.5 lb/hp

C&D Golf R DSG

C/D TEST RESULTS:

Zero to 60 mph: 4.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.7 sec
Zero to 140 mph: 28.1 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.8 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.8 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.2 sec @ 106 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 153 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 157 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.94 g

Lighting lap time:

Lap Time: 3:12.3
Base Price: $39,910
As-Tested Price: $39,910
292 hp | 3416 lb | 11.7 lb/hp

[kiysersosae]

The M2 is on only a 1.5sec slower than cayman on track test I seen and around 0.5 than the tt rs. Straight line comparison with these cars had the M2 looking like it was in limp mode, the tt rs was 8 sec to 100mph and the m2 was 10.7, cayman came in 9.8.

Now after 100mph the m2 really struggles. 18.5sec to 130mph against the cayman 16.3 and the audience 14.9 sec.

I'm not sure why the M2 is so slow after 100mph but it's shocking really, especially given the cayman is down on power and usually this would favour the more powerful car. This is also why the M240i comes back so strong on an m2 after 70 80mph.

To summarise, on a track the M2 is as fast as both of these cars (so long as there is not a huge straight) but in a drag race it gets wiped clean.

[DoggieHowser]

If you are referring to the DriveTribe comparison, I suspect it has to do with gearing.

Having a seventh cog on the TTRS DSG really makes a difference. Discovered this when we were comparing GTRs (6 speed DSG) vs the 911TTs which first came in 6 speed manuals and then in 7PDK, all in similar states of tune.

The DriveTribe result could also be due to the manual vs DSG handicap.

Having said that, I didn't buy the M2 for outright speed.

I'm using it for the daily commute where I want to have involvement at relatively low speeds. And for the weekend drives at the local mountain passes.

The Golf R is a relatively fun car too. But it isn't the same level as the M2.

Chris Harris had an old video segment back when he was running Chris Harris on Cars where he pit the Mk7 R against the M235i Performance Pack which is well worth a watch.

[homerdog]

Originally Posted by stylinexpat

Was looking into a new M2 but then Nurburgring numbers along with 1/4 Mike numbers are not all that great. 0-60 numbers are same as new 2018 Golf R. The Golf R might even be quicker around Nurburgring track. 7:58 is not all that great

So what? Do you actually care about the overall experience of driving and owning a car? Judging by your post (and plenty of other comments in this forum suggest others agree with you) it would appear not.

I'll carry on enjoying mine, you carry on worrying about lap and 0-60 times. Whenever I see a Golf R, I'll admire it, but will be happy in the knowledge that I'd rather be in my car than theirs.

[six-n-twins53]

I can't imagine buying a car based on how it did at the ring. If you're looking for a 1/4 miler, you may want to hit your local dodge dealer. Then you won't have to worry about a pesky Golf. If it makes you feel any better, you probably cant replicate any of those performance numbers anyway regardless of which car you chose.

[3rdcoast228i]

No doubt both are a blast to drive. The Golf R has the better value for the price... but it's not that great to look at.

M2 110%

[kiysersosae]

In the interest of science I just went out and tried some 0.60mph and onto 100mph

So, best I could do (DCT, did not use launch control) and I have fab speed dp 200cel was:

0-60mph 5sec flat, worst was 5.6sec
0-100mph was 10.2 and worst was 10.6sec

I have the steinbauer piggy back, turned it on and done

0-60mph 4.7 worst was 5.4sec
0-100mph was 9.6 and worst was 9.8

I got a bit of wheelspin in both tests but it can't be helped with these cars.

Ultimately, the times are good times and overall the balance of the package in the M2 is top notch, it's well rounded car.

[No Boost]

The M2 will eat the R in every objective category. This thread is dangerously close to trolling.

[aerobat]

If you want fastest 0-60 buy, something else.
If you want fastest Nurnburgring times, buy something else.
If you want fastest 1/4 mile, buy something else.

BUT;
If you want a quality build, rear wheel drive, six cylinder classic sport coupé.
Beutiful looks according to most people. Fantastic sound.
Exceptionally easy and rewarding to drive. Push it a little hard and back will easily take a wider track than front. With great control.
Good performance. And the family can go with you.
All to an affordable price.
Then BMW M2 is hard to beat.

Top it off with a M Perfomance Chassie, Sport DP and M Performance Steering wheel to make feeling and performance even better.

Car choice is just not about objective measurements, it is feelings.

[trj3]

I just sold a c6 Z06 and also have a GT350. The car I run to is the M2. Not as fast as either but a blast to drive. Depends on your needs.

[Lp01]

Originally Posted by stylinexpat

Was looking into a new M2 but then Nurburgring numbers along with 1/4 Mike numbers are not all that great. 0-60 numbers are same as new 2018 Golf R. The Golf R might even be quicker around Nurburgring track. 7:58 is not all that great

If you are considering a "boring" Golf R you should definitely look at the M140i xDrive. Better sound, more fun and torquier.

[stylinexpat]

Originally Posted by kiysersosae

The M2 is on only a 1.5sec slower than cayman on track test I seen and around 0.5 than the tt rs. Straight line comparison with these cars had the M2 looking like it was in limp mode, the tt rs was 8 sec to 100mph and the m2 was 10.7, cayman came in 9.8.

Now after 100mph the m2 really struggles. 18.5sec to 130mph against the cayman 16.3 and the audience 14.9 sec.

I'm not sure why the M2 is so slow after 100mph but it's shocking really, especially given the cayman is down on power and usually this would favour the more powerful car. This is also why the M240i comes back so strong on an m2 after 70 80mph.

To summarise, on a track the M2 is as fast as both of these cars (so long as there is not a huge straight) but in a drag race it gets wiped clean.

At 100 and 130 MPH there seemed to be quite a difference between the M2 and Audi TT RS

[stylinexpat]

Originally Posted by kiysersosae

In the interest of science I just went out and tried some 0.60mph and onto 100mph

So, best I could do (DCT, did not use launch control) and I have fab speed dp 200cel was:

0-60mph 5sec flat, worst was 5.6sec
0-100mph was 10.2 and worst was 10.6sec

I have the steinbauer piggy back, turned it on and done

0-60mph 4.7 worst was 5.4sec
0-100mph was 9.6 and worst was 9.8

I got a bit of wheelspin in both tests but it can't be helped with these cars.

Ultimately, the times are good times and overall the balance of the package in the M2 is top notch, it's well rounded car.

Originally Posted by 3rdcoast228i

No doubt both are a blast to drive. The Golf R has the better value for the price... but it's not that great to look at.

M2 110%

M2 Definitely looks better on outside. New 2018 interior is supposed to be quite nice on the Golf R.

Originally Posted by kiysersosae

In the interest of science I just went out and tried some 0.60mph and onto 100mph

So, best I could do (DCT, did not use launch control) and I have fab speed dp 200cel was:

0-60mph 5sec flat, worst was 5.6sec
0-100mph was 10.2 and worst was 10.6sec

I have the steinbauer piggy back, turned it on and done

0-60mph 4.7 worst was 5.4sec
0-100mph was 9.6 and worst was 9.8

I got a bit of wheelspin in both tests but it can't be helped with these cars.

Ultimately, the times are good times and overall the balance of the package in the M2 is top notch, it's well rounded car.

I definitively think this is a great city and freeway car. Fun factor and a daily well rounded car are probably quite good but the actual performance numbers I would have though to be a little better.

0-60 in 4 sec., 1/4 mile at 115-117 MPH and Nurburgring at in 7:40-7:45 would have been good.

[Twix]

A lot of the slowness of the M2 at speed comes from the extra cooling and downforce added. If you look at the cD of the M2, it's actually pretty horrible in comparison to most road going cars, there are even pick-up trucks with a better cD. But, the M2 has better cooling and decent stock front end downforce.

But really, how often are you racing at speeds above 100 MPH on public roads? Hopefully never unless you're in Germany on the Autobahn.

As for the 1/4 mile times, yeah it's slow. It also isn't set up for drag racing whatsoever. The gearing is way too short, the tires have zero sidewall and the rear suspension is way too stiff.

Want to go drag racing? Buy a Challenger. Want to go circuit racing, buy a Cayman. Want the best of both worlds and the ability to travel long distance comfortably, buy an M2. It's a well rounded jack-of-all-trades, master of none.

[PackPride85]

M2 cD: .35
Cayman cD: .31
Golf R cd: .32

That's why the M2 struggles at higher speeds.

[chris719]

Drag coefficient without frontal area is meaningless though.

[ModestV8]

Are you looking for a car mainly based on the 1/4 mile & 0-60?

[Aloha Joe]

Originally Posted by Twix

A lot of the slowness of the M2 at speed comes from the extra cooling and downforce added. If you look at the cD of the M2, it's actually pretty horrible in comparison to most road going cars, there are even pick-up trucks with a better cD. But, the M2 has better cooling and decent stock front end downforce.

But really, how often are you racing at speeds above 100 MPH on public roads? Hopefully never unless you're in Germany on the Autobahn.

As for the 1/4 mile times, yeah it's slow. It also isn't set up for drag racing whatsoever. The gearing is way too short, the tires have zero sidewall and the rear suspension is way too stiff.

Want to go drag racing? Buy a Challenger. Want to go circuit racing, buy a Cayman. Want the best of both worlds and the ability to travel long distance comfortably, buy an M2. It's a well rounded jack-of-all-trades, master of none.

Originally Posted by PackPride85

M2 cD: .35
Cayman cD: .31
Golf R cd: .32

That's why the M2 struggles at higher speeds.

Yep, Just back from ED, and on the autobahn the M2 is fun accelerating to about 85, then you can feel the drag from there. That's literally what I thought at the time. But on the back country roads and passes it's

[hoyasaxa]

OP is on crack.

Golf R - 1/4 mile: 13.2 @ 105.7 (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...th-grip-page-2)
M2 - 1/4 mile: 12.5 @ 113