[bradleyland]

Eh, not sure I agree with all of that. Keep in mind that the M2 is going to be very weight-focused. BMW isn't going to produce an I5. Audi "owns" the I5, and for BMW to produce one would be seen as copying. They'd never live it down. That means it's I4 or I6 for the M2.

When you consider the focus on weight, I can't see how the I6 makes more sense than an I4. Not only are you talking about additional weight, but the packaging of an I6 makes it the longest engine format commonly available. That pushes the weight even further forward. Personally, I'd love to see BMW deliver the M2 with a slightly rear-biased weight distribution. With those goals in mind, an I4 has significant upsides.

Originally Posted by HBspeed

Like that pistonheads article suggests, a de-tuned S55 would truly satisfy everyone.

It might satisfy you, but you're not "everyone". Smoothness is nice, but it's farther down on the list of priorities in a sports car. For a grand tourer, sure, but not in a sports car. The M2 is going to a very focused car. The M235i is there for people who want the larger engine with the associated refinement. As freaked out as I was about the I4 at the beginning, I've become a real supporter of the idea, provided we get a real light-weight car. If it comes out weighing 3300 lbs, well then the whole thing is a wash, because there's no point. You might as well drop in an S65, because they didn't make good on their promise.

[jmcphillips1]

I really hope they deliver a 6 cyl engine for us all so we can burn this thread. I'm tired of it staying at the top of the feed. Too bad we'll still have to debate this for the next year to year and a half I would guess

[HBspeed]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

Eh, not sure I agree with all of that. Keep in mind that the M2 is going to be very weight-focused. BMW isn't going to produce an I5. Audi "owns" the I5, and for BMW to produce one would be seen as copying. They'd never live it down. That means it's I4 or I6 for the M2.

When you consider the focus on weight, I can't see how the I6 makes more sense than an I4. Not only are you talking about additional weight, but the packaging of an I6 makes it the longest engine format commonly available. That pushes the weight even further forward. Personally, I'd love to see BMW deliver the M2 with a slightly rear-biased weight distribution. With those goals in mind, an I4 has significant upsides.



It might satisfy you, but you're not "everyone". Smoothness is nice, but it's farther down on the list of priorities in a sports car. For a grand tourer, sure, but not in a sports car. The M2 is going to a very focused car. The M235i is there for people who want the larger engine with the associated refinement. As freaked out as I was about the I4 at the beginning, I've become a real supporter of the idea, provided we get a real light-weight car. If it comes out weighing 3300 lbs, well then the whole thing is a wash, because there's no point. You might as well drop in an S65, because they didn't make good on their promise.

You are still avoiding that fact that the 2-series is not a small car or on a platform that was designed solely for light weight. The 2-series is built on a modified 3-series platform which is a mid-size to large car now. Thus it doesn't make sense to artificially limit such a platform to a 4-cylinder engine, in the same way as it would in a platform initially designed around a consistent theme of lightness.

This generation 2-series, regardless of utilizing some CFRP non-structural panels, will never be anywhere close to a featherweight sports car where a 4-cylinder or smaller engine is an ideal compromise on the path towards ultimate lightness. A sports car platform that is sized/designed correctly for a 4-cylinder engine to be ideal would be an Elise, Miata, 4C, S2000, etc. The 2-series does not belong in the same class as these other featherweight focused sports cars.

Therefore, a 4-cylinder while it may save weight and improve weight distribution, is truly a compromise in such a relatively large and heavy platform. People can spin this however way they want, but that does not change the fact that many potential buyers will never be content with this compromise being made to a "pure sports car" being built on such an undeniably unfocused platform.

[Tonifyd]

HBSPEED? are you by any chance the same guy from hbspeed in the subaru community who also came from TDC Tuning?

[dmboone25]

Again, the packaging to me is irrelevant. This car (M2) should have a completely different feel than a M235, M3/4 or whatever. If BMW can accomplish that, it really doesn't matter what engine they shoe horn into the 2 series body.

I am thinking of a slightly less raw version of the 07 Z4MC, with a little more comfort and useability. But we will see what they come up with...

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by HBspeed

You are still avoiding that fact that the 2-series is not a small car or on a platform that was designed solely for light weight. The 2-series is built on a modified 3-series platform which is a mid-size to large car now. Thus it doesn't make sense to artificially limit such a platform to a 4-cylinder engine, in the same way as it would in a platform initially designed around a consistent theme of lightness.

This generation 2-series, regardless of utilizing some CFRP non-structural panels, will never be anywhere close to a featherweight sports car where a 4-cylinder or smaller engine is an ideal compromise on the path towards ultimate lightness. A sports car platform that is sized/designed correctly for a 4-cylinder engine to be ideal would be an Elise, Miata, 4C, S2000, etc. The 2-series does not belong in the same class as these other featherweight focused sports cars.

Therefore, a 4-cylinder while it may save weight and improve weight distribution, is truly a compromise in such a relatively large and heavy platform. People can spin this however way they want, but that does not change the fact that many potential buyers will never be content with this compromise being made to a "pure sports car" being built on such an undeniably unfocused platform.

This is probably the best argument against the I4 I've read yet. It is hard to ignore the fact that the 2-series isn't all that small. I'm anxiously awaiting more rumors regarding the weight. That's going to make it or break it for me.

[Lucky13]

Originally Posted by HBspeed

You are still avoiding that fact that the 2-series is not a small car or on a platform that was designed solely for light weight. The 2-series is built on a modified 3-series platform which is a mid-size to large car now. Thus it doesn't make sense to artificially limit such a platform to a 4-cylinder engine, in the same way as it would in a platform initially designed around a consistent theme of lightness.

This generation 2-series, regardless of utilizing some CFRP non-structural panels, will never be anywhere close to a featherweight sports car where a 4-cylinder or smaller engine is an ideal compromise on the path towards ultimate lightness. A sports car platform that is sized/designed correctly for a 4-cylinder engine to be ideal would be an Elise, Miata, 4C, S2000, etc. The 2-series does not belong in the same class as these other featherweight focused sports cars.

Therefore, a 4-cylinder while it may save weight and improve weight distribution, is truly a compromise in such a relatively large and heavy platform. People can spin this however way they want, but that does not change the fact that many potential buyers will never be content with this compromise being made to a "pure sports car" being built on such an undeniably unfocused platform.

3 Series is a large car? Toyota Corolla is 182.6 inches long, Chevy Cruze is 181 inches and 3 series 182.5. Better tell all those Corolla and Cruze owners they are driving large cars around, by the way those two are either classified as small or compact by all sources.

[dmboone25]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

3 Series is a large car? Toyota Corolla is 182.6 inches long, Chevy Cruze is 181 inches and 3 series 182.5. Better tell all those Corolla and Cruze owners they are driving large cars around, by the way those two are either classified as small or compact by all sources.

Are those E90 measurements? The new 3er looks like a boat...and the 4er in person is huge...at least they look that way to me.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

3 Series is a large car? Toyota Corolla is 182.6 inches long, Chevy Cruze is 181 inches and 3 series 182.5. Better tell all those Corolla and Cruze owners they are driving large cars around, by the way those two are either classified as small or compact by all sources.

Your examples are 4-door compact grocery getters. HBSpeed is talking about sports cars. His point is that if you're going to package a car with an I4 for the purposes of being lightweight sports coupe, then you shouldn't stack the deck against yourself from the outset. That seems like a fair point.

To provide some context, look at some well regarded I4 powered sports (oriented) cars:

Lotus Elise: 149 inches
Mazda Miata: 157.3 inches
Subaru BRZ: 166.7 inches
Audi TT: 165.3 inches
Mercedes Benz SLK: 162.8 inches
Mini Cooper JCW: 146.8 inches

M235i 174.5 inches

This all, of course, comes down to personal preference, but HBSpeed's point stands. BMW has started with a rather large platform, which will work against them if they're going for a lightweight sports coupe.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[Lucky13]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

Your examples are 4-door compact grocery getters. HBSpeed is talking about sports cars. His point is that if you're going to package a car with an I4 for the purposes of being lightweight sports coupe, then you shouldn't stack the deck against yourself from the outset. That seems like a fair point.

To provide some context, look at some well regarded I4 powered sports (oriented) cars:

Lotus Elise: 149 inches
Mazda Miata: 157.3 inches
Subaru BRZ: 166.7 inches
Audi TT: 165.3 inches
Mercedes Benz SLK: 162.8 inches
Mini Cooper JCW: 146.8 inches

M235i 174.5 inches

This all, of course, comes down to personal preference, but HBSpeed's point stands. BMW has started with a rather large platform, which will work against them if they're going for a lightweight sports coupe.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

And a Camaro is 190 inches and 3,700 lbs and Mustang 188 inches and 3,500 lbs so what's your point because the cars you mention are 2 seat cars. The Camaro and Mustang weights are without sunroofs so you are way off base. They could easily get the 2 series down to 3,100 just with carbon fiber, aluminum and take the sun roof out. You stand corrected.

[///Mangler]

Originally Posted by HBspeed

You are still avoiding that fact that the 2-series is not a small car or on a platform that was designed solely for light weight. The 2-series is built on a modified 3-series platform which is a mid-size to large car now. Thus it doesn't make sense to artificially limit such a platform to a 4-cylinder engine, in the same way as it would in a platform initially designed around a consistent theme of lightness.

This generation 2-series, regardless of utilizing some CFRP non-structural panels, will never be anywhere close to a featherweight sports car where a 4-cylinder or smaller engine is an ideal compromise on the path towards ultimate lightness. A sports car platform that is sized/designed correctly for a 4-cylinder engine to be ideal would be an Elise, Miata, 4C, S2000, etc. The 2-series does not belong in the same class as these other featherweight focused sports cars.

Therefore, a 4-cylinder while it may save weight and improve weight distribution, is truly a compromise in such a relatively large and heavy platform. People can spin this however way they want, but that does not change the fact that many potential buyers will never be content with this compromise being made to a "pure sports car" being built on such an undeniably unfocused platform.

um, those cars had NA 4cyl engines. The M2 will have nearly twice the HP and easily twice the torque. power to weight ratio is the magic number.

if they get it below 3000lbs, with todays suspension tech and that engine, it will be sublime.

no one wants to DD those cars above either. The M2 will have the ability to be a grocery getter and track day toy.


T

[Gaviin]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

M235i 174.5 inches

This all, of course, comes down to personal preference, but HBSpeed's point stands. BMW has started with a rather large platform, which will work against them if they're going for a lightweight sports coupe.

I dunno. The 2's length is exactly the same as the E36 M3, which I find to be a perfect size for a sports coupe. The other cars you listed, I would say are in a slightly different league in terms of car type and intended use (do any of them even have back seats at all?).

The E36 was quite a bit lighter than the new 2, so there are obviously plenty of ways to achieve a low curb weight despite the length of the car. It's just a question of whether BMW will prioritize that by not loading it up with a bunch of BS. If they reach that goal, I don't have any problem with a well-designed FI 4 cyl.

If anything, I hope they absolutely settle on a 4 because it will force them to seriously address the weight issue, or else they'll have a dog on their hands, which I'd like to think they'd do anything to avoid. A 6 gives them a lot more room to be sloppy, which isn't as appealing to me.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

And a Camaro is 190 inches and 3,700 lbs and Mustang 188 inches and 3,500 lbs so what's your point because the cars you mention are 2 seat cars. The Camaro and Mustang weights are without sunroofs so you are way off base. They could easily get the 2 series down to 3,100 just with carbon fiber, aluminum and take the sun roof out. You stand corrected.

Easy, killer. Someone stands corrected when they've made an error in reason or assertion of fact. I happily stand corrected when I make either of those mistakes. No one is telling you that you can't -- or shouldn't, for that matter -- buy an M2. I may buy one in spite of the arguments against the I4.

What we're having here is called an interesting discussion where people share their viewpoints and everyone (hopefully) takes something away from the conversation that we hadn't thought of before.

Originally Posted by Lucky13

... so what's your point ...

The point is that there is no black & white in this world. All HBSpeed has said, and all I'm agreeing with, is that when you look at the collection of successful, well regarded sports-oriented cars with inline 4-cylinder engines, you see that they're mostly on the small side. Yes, most of them are two-seaters. That's an important point! (Hey, look, I took something away from your comment that I hadn't thought of before) However, I'd incorporate that in to HBSpeed's original argument though.

Maybe that's why all those cars were/are successful with an I4; because they're two-seaters, they're smaller and lighter weight, so an I4 is a good fit for that package. The M2 is on the large side in that company, so there are valid questions about the fit with an I4 engine.

The Mustang and Camaro are both great cars that have been positively reviewed by the press, but they have different design goals than the M2. No one would classify them as lightweight sports cars. Keep in mind that we're not manufacturing this "lightweight" standard. SCOTT26 has said that this is the goal for the M2, not us.

When rumors of the I4 surfaced, I cried foul with the rest of the crowd. I was not originally sold on the idea that the M2 should have an I4. I've mostly come around to the idea, but HBSpeed makes some good counter points that I'm certainly going to consider when I experience the car for the first time. This way I won't let my excitement run away with my reason.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Gaviin

I dunno. The 2's length is exactly the same as the E36 M3, which I find to be a perfect size for a sports coupe. The other cars you listed, I would say are in a slightly different league in terms of car type and intended use (do any of them even have back seats at all?).

The E36 was quite a bit lighter than the new 2, so there are obviously plenty of ways to achieve a low curb weight despite the length of the car. It's just a question of whether BMW will prioritize that by not loading it up with a bunch of BS. If they reach that goal, I don't have any problem with a well-designed FI 4 cyl.

If anything, I hope they absolutely settle on a 4 because it will force them to seriously address the weight issue, or else they'll have a dog on their hands, which I'd like to think they'd do anything to avoid. A 6 gives them a lot more room to be sloppy, which isn't as appealing to me.

Your points illustrate really well how the M2 will sit in between the cars I listed and cars like the M3/M4. Like you, I really like the size of the E36 M3 and 2-series. I don't mean to imply that I think the M2 should shrink. I think we're really just questioning whether the character of an I4 (F/I or otherwise) fits the character of a car this size.

The E36 was delivered with a N/A I6, so the question becomes, can a F/I I4 become a reasonable replacement in this package? The addition of forced induction certainly differentiates the powerplant in this car from something you'd find in a Miata or Elise. The N20 in our X3 28i is no where near what a theoretical S20 would be, but we've been incredibly pleased with the performance of that engine. We actually held-off on buying the X3 to wait for the N20 refresh.

Funny story, my wife found the I6 powered X3 28i too weak. It required too much accelerator to get going. She almost pushed us in to getting a 2.0T powered Q5 because that car felt so much punchier around town. I talked her in to waiting for the N20 refresh in the X3, and she's thrilled with the car. And she's not even an enthusiast! I think that bodes well for what BMW M could do with this engine. I'm still optimistic.

[sdpauly]

Wow, what a massive disappointment if the M2 will be a turbo 4.

I want everything that's in the M4 except the SIZE. It's too BIG. I want the S55 powertrain in a small coupe like the 1/2 series. I am not trying to save money over an M4, I could afford to buy an M4 if I wanted one, I just don't want a car that big. They could always make them the same price if they are worried about an M2 stealing sales...

Or bring back a M coupe based on the Z4... But yeah, if the M2 really does have a four cylinder I will not be buying that.

[Aust350z]

If Nissan is doing something like this now... I'm expecting something great from BMW in 2 years...

http://www.engineering.com/DesignerE...HP-Engine.aspx

3 cylinder
400bhp
40kg (88lbs)

[david.orr]

I haven't gone through this thread cos' the conversation seem to focus on 4cyl v 6 cyl. Personally I would be disappointed if the M2 comes in auto and not manual.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Aust350z

If Nissan is doing something like this now... I'm expecting something great from BMW in 2 years...

http://www.engineering.com/DesignerE...HP-Engine.aspx

3 cylinder
400bhp
40kg (88lbs)

88lbs

That is insane. One of the interesting things about EVs is that they can mask a lot of the unfavorable characteristics of wildly turbocharged, small displacement engines. If you've got a battery pack to fill in the gaps in output from your super-boosted, small-displacement engine, you can really focus on power output and efficiency in a very narrow range.

I found a Nissan News article that says the DIG-T R will rev to 7,500 RPM. It's pretty remarkable that it's making that kind of power at only 7,500 RPM. I would have expected it to turn greater than 10,000 RPM, just like boosted F1 power plants.

The whole thing reminds me of the railway's transition from steam motive power to diesel electric. A steam locomotive is a constant force engine, so the higher the RPM, the higher the power output. This is very similar to an ICE (internal combustion engine). The limits of power output are related to fluid dynamics; the flow of air/fuel through the engine. A diesel electric locomotive is a constant power engine. The diesel generator turns out a specified number of kW all the time.

With an engine like the DIG-T R, you have such a light weight engine, you could get away with coupling it to a genset and spinning it at 7,500 RPM all the time, maximizing power output. You'd never know it was gutless at the bottom end, because you'll never use it there.

[BMW269]

M2 with M4 engine an CF would be awesome, but you really believe BMW will build a car that is better than an M4?

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by sdpauly

Wow, what a massive disappointment if the M2 will be a turbo 4.

I want everything that's in the M4 except the SIZE. It's too BIG. I want the S55 powertrain in a small coupe like the 1/2 series. I am not trying to save money over an M4, I could afford to buy an M4 if I wanted one, I just don't want a car that big. They could always make them the same price if they are worried about an M2 stealing sales...

Or bring back a M coupe based on the Z4... But yeah, if the M2 really does have a four cylinder I will not be buying that.

It's not a disappointment when it actually makes perfect sense.
In the time I spent with the M4 I came to realise that using a detuned engine in the M2 kind of takes the spotlight away from the M4.

The M4 is the kind of car that is developed with a passion , a complete synergy which makes the car absolutely brilliant. Everything that is developed for the M4 should stay exclusively with the M4 . M4 works because of its sheer assistance to the technology , engine and the overall precision.

The M2 has to forge its own identity but not be a poor relation.
A four cylinder will not only progress identity but allow for new innovations especially for this segment especially when the focus is heavily on Precision than extra numbers.

[BMWJS]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

It's not a disappointment when it actually makes perfect sense.
In the time I spent with the M4 I came to realise that using a detuned engine in the M2 kind of takes the spotlight away from the M4.

The M4 is the kind of car that is developed with a passion , a complete synergy which makes the car absolutely brilliant. Everything that is developed for the M4 should stay exclusively with the M4 . M4 works because of its sheer assistance to the technology , engine and the overall precision.

The M2 has to forge its own identity but not be a poor relation.
A four cylinder will not only progress identity but allow for new innovations especially for this segment especially when the focus is heavily on Precision than extra numbers.

I hear you but I can't help that I am disappointed. I believe a 6 cylinder is the better choice of engines and I love the smoothness, sound, power delivery, etc. of the 6 cylinder that I currently own.

[Ramos]

Yes the management at BMW should keep telling themselves that a 4 cylinder M2 makes perfect sense and completely ignore what their potential customers are telling them.. That's the way to go!!