[infinitekidM2C]

Originally Posted by medphysdave

M2 Minecraft pack

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by medphysdave

If that's the case, the CSL will be a very special/collectable car. I just don't want to give up the back seat. I think there will be significantly better 2 seat options. (Unless you want track ready out of the box).

But then, why would anyone track abuse such a collectible car?

We need a leak of the competition with all available options
Hopefully a CS package.

Because that's what an M2 CSL is made for ?

[medphysdave]

Originally Posted by M3 Adjuster

Because that's what an M2 CSL is made for ?

I agree with the gent that says he buys to drive. That's my attitude. I plan to track my CS, and beat the poop out of it. Just wonder if any of those M3 CSL guys would have done things differently in hindsight. M2 CSL would certainly be collectable in my opinion. I don't think the CS/competition will be collectible, but I think it will have a slower than average depreciation over time. But it doesn't matter if you never sell it

[JustChris]

Originally Posted by medphysdave

M2 Minecraft pack

LOL great call :

[tke743]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Another view from VIN Land:
[PICTURES]

Can I point out that the reason they said they put the non-m mirrors on the M2, was that due to the higher ride height (of the M2 vs the M3/M4) it didn't make aerodynamic sense. Let the rumors fly that the M2 CS is going to be lower now.

At some point, teasing becomes evil.

[AngryBaby]

Originally Posted by tke743

Can I point out that the reason they put the non-m mirrors on the M2, was that due to the higher ride height (of the M2 vs the M3/M4) it didn't make aerodynamic sense. Let the rumors fly that the car is going to be lower now.

At some point, teasing becomes evil.

I can't believe people actually believe that statement. The mirrors were clearly a marketing decision IMO. Even if the current mirrors actually do improve aerodynamics, it will have a very small effect on a car that clearly appears to have been neutered by the ///Marketing department in multiple ways.

Limiting the awesomeness of the M2 is clearly a theme with the car. However BMW may have stumbled onto more success than anticipated with the low-end torque and daily driveability of our N55 coupled with the chassis and relatively short wheelbase.

[tke743]

Originally Posted by AngryBaby

I can't believe people actually believe that statement. The mirrors were clearly a marketing decision IMO. Even if the current mirrors actually do improve aerodynamics, it will have a very small effect on a car that clearly appears to have been neutered by the ///Marketing department in multiple ways.

Limiting the awesomeness of the M2 is clearly a theme with the car. However BMW may have stumbled onto more success than anticipated with the low-end torque and daily driveability of our N55 coupled with the chassis and relatively short wheelbase.

At no point did I say that I believed that statement. My comment was much more in relation to the rumor mill of this car.

[stefan]

Originally Posted by tke743

At no point did I say that I believe that statement. My comment was much more in relation to the rumor mill of this car.

yeah that statement was clearly nonsense.


On the plus side we will now have a part number for a simple conversion heyo

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by tke743

Can I point out that the reason they said they put the non-m mirrors on the M2, was that due to the higher ride height (of the M2 vs the M3/M4) it didn't make aerodynamic sense. Let the rumors fly that the M2 CS is going to be lower now.
At some point, teasing becomes evil.

Originally Posted by AngryBaby

I can't believe people actually believe that statement. The mirrors were clearly a marketing decision IMO. Even if the current mirrors actually do improve aerodynamics, it will have a very small effect on a car that clearly appears to have been neutered by the ///Marketing department in multiple ways.
Limiting the awesomeness of the M2 is clearly a theme with the car. However BMW may have stumbled onto more success than anticipated with the low-end torque and daily driveability of our N55 coupled with the chassis and relatively short wheelbase.

Originally Posted by tke743

At no point did I say that I believed that statement. My comment was much more in relation to the rumor mill of this car.

Originally Posted by stefan

yeah that statement was clearly nonsense.
On the plus side we will now have a part number for a simple conversion heyo

For the record: excerpt from a January 2016 interview with M2 designer Al-Attar, tackling the M mirrors versus M235i mirrors topic too (official explanation) (source: here):

«We asked Al-Attar about some of the more controversial styling cues of the M2, as well, like the controversial issue with the lack of M mirrors. The M2 mirrors are pulled straight from the M235i while fans wanted the same mirrors from its bigger M brothers.
Al-Attar says that the team noticed during aerodynamics testing that the M mirrors actually fared worse than the M235i’s on the M2. This is likely due to the higher body of the M2 over the M3 or M4. So the M235i mirrors stayed because they offered superior aerodynamics.
The other reason for the lack of M mirrors is the need to differentiate between the M2 and the M4. “What we tried to do with the car is to keep a respectable distance from the M4; the car is very sporty, very fun to drive, but we wanted to keep the distance in positioning the car in the market,” Al-Attar mentioned.»

The forum was not particularly impressed by BMW's choice to keep M235i mirrors for the M2: http://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1183594

And then there was also this 'glitch' in some base M2 promo materials:

[AngryBaby]

Thanks, Artemis, have seen before. I remain firmly in the marketing decision camp with the improved aerodynamics as a likely very small and convenient excuse.

I'm ok with it, mind you, because the car is great fun to drive and who cares about frickin mirrors. However I never appreciate being BS'd.

[Nkc]

didn't know BMW made Japanese porn.

[cc3]

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/i...going-upmarket ("Insight: how BMW is reinventing its design and going upmarket")

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by Artemis

For the record: excerpt from a January 2016 interview with M2 designer Al-Attar, tackling the M mirrors versus M235i mirrors topic too (official explanation) (source: here):

We asked Al-Attar about some of the more controversial styling cues of the M2, as well, like the controversial issue with the lack of M mirrors. The M2 mirrors are pulled straight from the M235i while fans wanted the same mirrors from its bigger M brothers.
Al-Attar says that the team noticed during aerodynamics testing that the M mirrors actually fared worse than the M235i’s on the M2. This is likely due to the higher body of the M2 over the M3 or M4. So the M235i mirrors stayed because they offered superior aerodynamics.
The other reason for the lack of M mirrors is the need to differentiate between the M2 and the M4. “What we tried to do with the car is to keep a respectable distance from the M4; the car is very sporty, very fun to drive, but we wanted to keep the distance in positioning the car in the market,” Al-Attar mentioned.

The forum was not particularly impressed by BMW's choice to keep M235i mirrors for the M2: http://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1183594

And then there was also this 'glitch' in some base M2 promo materials:
[IMG]http://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/att...p;d=1447382587[/IMG]

No " M mirrrors " for you ! :

Seriously though. The aerodynamics of most M cars is actually worse than the lower models, and I'm sure the 'M mirrors' indeed are partly to blame.

I'll have to go find the Cd of the 228 vs M235/M240 vs the M2.

[medphysdave]

http://www.bmwblog.com/2017/10/22/hi...ed-bmw-m2-gts/

Not sure why the camera guy wasn't focusing more on model with the wing???

No cage or rear seat removal yet.

[Gatte]

Originally Posted by medphysdave

http://www.bmwblog.com/2017/10/22/hi...ed-bmw-m2-gts/

Not sure why the camera guy wasn't focusing more on model with the wing???

No cage or rear seat removal yet.

Let's nip this rumor right here before it gathers too much steam.
It does not have a wing and I can absolutely confirm that, that car is not the GTS or the CSL.

I had pictures of it's near identical sister car a few weeks ago, right after it was produced (In Garching) and posted one here after blurring the license plate.

Originally Posted by Gatte

I was able to zoom in a little bit.

The guys who built it do not think it's a CSL/GTS and based on what I was told was changed in the 2 cars, I do not think it's a CSL or GTS either.

[tokon]

Originally Posted by medphysdave

http://www.bmwblog.com/2017/10/22/hi...ed-bmw-m2-gts/

Not sure why the camera guy wasn't focusing more on model with the wing???

No cage or rear seat removal yet.

See the video, there is no wing

[stefan]

Originally Posted by M3 Adjuster

No " M mirrrors " for you ! :

Seriously though. The aerodynamics of most M cars is actually worse than the lower models, and I'm sure the 'M mirrors' indeed are partly to blame.

I'll have to go find the Cd of the 228 vs M235/M240 vs the M2.

The aero difference would be absolutely negligible for a street car even light track duty. Completely irrelevant. It was purely cost and marketing.

So now that I have my M2, I actually really hate the mirrors. It's the one thing that doesn't quite fit the character car. I can even excuse the seats. But I have to look at those dumbo ear mirrors, identical to my X1, every time I'm driving.

If the CS has the M mirrors, then we should be able to easily retrofit. Waiting on IND.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by medphysdave

http://www.bmwblog.com/2017/10/22/hi...ed-bmw-m2-gts/
Not sure why the camera guy wasn't focusing more on model with the wing???
No cage or rear seat removal yet.

The article states: "In the back, we can easily spot a massive rear wing".

In the referenced video the (M2 Competition) testmule and its license plate are filmed front + rear: it features unmistakably the base M2 Gurney flap - no wing. The object in the backdrop next to the bushes labeled as "massive rear wing" is just a parking lot feature.





No news here (pictures of this car tested on the road: see here):

• M3/M4 exhaust tail pipes (diagonal cut design instead of vertical cut design);
• base M2 driver's seat was replaced by the one-piece seat (forthcoming option 712: "M Sports Seat") + all other seats are base M2 seats (passenger seats front and rear);
• upgraded brakes (forthcoming option 2NH: "M Sportbrake"): 400mm M5/M6 rotors featuring four rows of drilled holes (instead of three rows; see here for a comparison with the base M2 brakes).

[M2Nebula]

Ridiculous, how can one mistake a rear wing for something that looks like a metal picnic table.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by M2Nebula

Ridiculous, how can one mistake a rear wing for something that looks like a metal picnic table.

But sometimes...

[tke743]

Originally Posted by M2Nebula

Ridiculous, how can one mistake a rear wing for something that looks like a metal picnic table.

Desperation breeds inventiveness.

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by stefan

The aero difference would be absolutely negligible for a street car even light track duty. Completely irrelevant. It was purely cost and marketing.

So now that I have my M2, I actually really hate the mirrors. It's the one thing that doesn't quite fit the character car. I can even excuse the seats. But I have to look at those dumbo ear mirrors, identical to my X1, every time I'm driving.

If the CS has the M mirrors, then we should be able to easily retrofit. Waiting on IND.

That sounds like you just ignored the actual facts and simply restated your personal reasons for not liking them. ?


http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-...st-review/amp/


" The M2 runs through 1,320 feet in 12.8 seconds at 107.5 mph. The M4? Noticeably quicker: 12.5 seconds at 116.5 mph. The reason for the discrepancy there is simple: The M2 has a higher coefficient of drag (0.35 versus 0.34, with similar frontal area) and 14 percent fewer horsepower, but only 2.9 percent less mass to accelerate. "

Cd- M2 - 0.35
Cd- m235 - 0.33
CD- 228 - 0.29

Cd- M4 is 0.34

So... Presuming a BMW engineer didn't straight up lie to consumers, if BMW had placed ' M MIRRORS " on the M2 it would be even *slower * compared to the M4 ... and even closer to the M235 /M240 than it is currently. That might be a bigger problem for BMW than people on forums worried about mirrors.

I mean seriously, since it does appear to be primarily about vanity for you, your aftermarket purchase of an ' m mirror solution' will be welcomed by a vendor who has no reason to care about your vehicle performance , but rather instead making it look visually more attractive (to you ).

The fact that you are so incensed by the mirrors just proves that bmw was correct. Just like the folks over at Porsche , They can hustle about 15k out of some chaps over things like " ///M mirrors " carbon fiber trim pattern , ///M buttons , and ' ///M seats ' , ///M carbon fiber roof" let alone performance items.

Nice move by BMW ,an ///M carbon fiber hand brake lever is probably next !

I'm actually truly amazed that BMW hasn't got "///M performance mirrors " for you .... they are totally missing out.