[Inge_F]

Originally Posted by amdmaxx

600lb drop over m235 won't happen

1350kg/2970lbs, 4cyl biturbo, 360hp, 400Nm, red line at 8000RPM.

[taibanl]

Originally Posted by Gangsta D

if its only four cylinders then it might be a four cylinder 2.5 liter... then they might have my attention and interest i think the an S20 would not work for me... definitely its only 300 hp, need more... more hp... more more

Old news is that from here on all BMW engines will be modular 500/cyl

[crqflier]

It's interesting that P-cars haven't been back in 4 cyl land in almost two decades. But if the m2 can squeeze in at or under 3k pounds and get to 350 hp, there will finally be legit competition with a cayman s. And if that means 4 cyl, so be it. As long as we're adding specs - cf roof, no sunroof, cloth standard, no forced packages to get key features. This will be my next new car.

[dmboone25]

Originally Posted by flinchy

you can still have the handling and 'balance' with the 6cyl motor in place.. it's only upsides really, a tiny bit more weight for WAY more power... as evidenced in the 1M.. imagine if they went all out ground up on the 1M like they did with the new M3/4.. CF hood/roof/boot from factory, that sorta thing... heck, the M3/M4 will be lighter than the 1M.. so seriously imagine it, even lighter and smaller than that yet again, with good power still!

no matter what way you look at it, the M235i would have to be a better base platform with the N55, if you wanted to go fast.. easier and cheaper to add widebody and suspension with a bigger turbo upgrade, unless the M2 has a seriously spectacular tough S20B20 with a rev limit at the moon or something.

the M2 would only really be good for showing that you can afford an 'M'.. and even then it'd be bad, since it's the base model 'M' lol.

Oh I hear you - I'm just guessing as to where the thinking would have to be.

I suppose we could have a different I6 by then too - the N55's replacement. I bet it will be even lighter as well, whatever they call it and whenever it actually shows up.

But a 4 cylinder with a red line at 9000 or more....well that just seems like it could be interesting.

[335i2007]

Originally Posted by crqflier

It's interesting that P-cars haven't been back in 4 cyl land in almost two decades. But if the m2 can squeeze in at or under 3k pounds and get to 350 hp, there will finally be legit competition with a cayman s. And if that means 4 cyl, so be it. As long as we're adding specs - cf roof, no sunroof, cloth standard, no forced packages to get key features. This will be my next new car.

That's why I jumped ship from BMW after I saw the new M3/M4 were turbo so bought a 2014 Cayman S. It's something that BMW just did not have to offer ( light weight focused car) when I wanted to make the switch.

[Marioalex24]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

Drop two cylinders of the Autoexpress article.

BMW want the fastest four cylinder car in its segment. They also want the M2 to be the most progressive and dynamic car in its segment as well as the lightest performance car. They want a car that has a soul, unlike the Mercedes-Benz AMG A45/CLA 45 which are soulless to drive.

Sweet. Thanks Scott for the update. Cants wait for great M2. So if the M235 is quicker than the 1M. Then the M2 with a i4 engine will complete some these two with a smaller engine. Wow I love the idea. As long as it has the same porportions of the 2series. Can't wait I'm in.

Hopefully it isn't in the high $60k

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by HBspeed

All this inevitable 4 vs 6 cylinder talk makes me wonder...

What is keeping M from taking the S55, ripping out the turbos and all associated plumbing, intercoolers, etc. Saving a good amount of weight in the process. And then tuning that base S55 engine the best they can on whatever their budget?

I would image people would go nuts for this Naturally aspirated S55 in an M2. It would avoid the inevitable M235i comparisons of having a 4 cylinder, and make all the enthusiasts and cylinder number lovers beyond happy.

What would the weight difference really be between a hypothetical S20 and an S55 without the turbos and all associated plumbing, intercoolers, etc.? Can't be that big I would imagine.

Originally Posted by jstnstr

I don't really think that is a plausible option, only because it is an engine built for forced induction, not NA. But what I don't understand is why can they not build a naturally aspirated inline 6 like what was in the E46 M3? With 8-9 years more of technology they should easily be able to extract 350-360 hp out of a naturally aspirated and high revving inline 6 about 3-3.2 liters in capacity. THAT is what I would like to see.

At the time the S54 was the highest output naturally aspirated engine in production (short of the million dollar McLaren F1), how fucking exciting of a prospect is that? Not only that but the critical acclaim the car received- why wouldnt BMW want to re-create that car? With the advancements in CFRP they should easily be able to make a 3200lb M2 with a 350-360hp inline 6 revving to 8000rpm. That car would rip.

I hope you guys wrote this all up and mailed it to Santa, because you've got better chances getting what you want from him than you do BMW.

Srsly, every one of you needs to go to this site and start reading. Read every last bit of it. I know it's in half-broken english, but you'll come away enlightened.

http://www.autozine.org/technical_sc...ine/Index.html

Originally Posted by jstnstr

They couldn't make an NA inline 6 as fuel efficient as an FI inline 6?

16/24 was what the E46 got, but I am sure they could improve upon that which isnt even that bad.

Fuel efficiency isn't magic. It's the result of physics and engineering. Naturally aspirated engine technology is just about tapped out. Between variable valve lift/timing and direct injection, there aren't many more gains left in the naturally aspirated formula.

When you rotate an engine assembly, a specific volume of air must move through the engine, and because of the stoichiometric ratio requirements, this requires a fixed minimum amount of fuel for a given displacement of engine. The advantage of a turbocharger is that you have what is essentially a variable-displacement engine. Under boost, you can get the air-fuel volume of an engine that is 1.5x (or more!) the displacement. You simply cannot do this with a naturally-aspirated engine. Additionally, everything that makes an engine work well at high-rpm causes you pain and suffering at the low end. It's a recipe for poor fuel economy.

We'd all love to go back to the glory days of 8,000 RPM wonder-machines, but emissions and fuel economy regulations won't allow it. You're wasting your breath.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by HBspeed

1. High revving, naturally aspirated 4 cylinder. Buck the trend, do just one engine for the old schoolers. Or even better do a high revving, naturally aspirated 6 cylinder and blow everyone's minds and create an instant legend and attainable halo car.

2. A KERS system. Allowing an instant boost in acceleration at strategic times without the silliness and weight of a typical hybrid system. F1 tech tie-ins never hurt.

3. Active Aero or DRS or some kind, this however assumes that M2 would have large wings and spoilers. Taking a bit of F1 tech that is done in a simple/efficient manner would go a long way towards creating a racing pedigree.

4. Release it with true carbon bucket seats that fold and have side airbags built in. Porsche did it in 2008 and it was available in the US market. There is no reason BMW can't do that same.

5. Install a flux capacitor. They're all the rage once you hit 88 MPH. I saw these in the movies back the 80's, so I'm sure BMW M division can figure it out by now.

6. Quit screwing around and go carbon fiber monocoque in the chassis department. We know you can do it, because F1 cars have been carbon fiber for quite some time now. Quit sand-bagging.

7. Fill the wheels with helium. I can't believe you guys haven't thought of this yet. I mean, speculation is that this car is around 80 lbs heavier than the 135i. It seems like you could have made up at least part of this by inflating the wheels with helium. Seems totally obvious.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by M3 Adjuster

Doesnt mean you can't leep the same bore and change the stroke with a new, lightened crankshaft and different pistons.. S20.. S22.. or S25....

I didn't say they can't, I said it's unlikely that they will. I think the writing is on the wall. Just look at the S55 in the M3/4. That's why my closing statement was "This is all conjecture, of course, but in terms of likelihood, we can look to the current trends to infer the future outcome."

[AGAV13]

Let's not forget people, 2 years is a long time away. A lot of technological advancement can happen in this time.

[shivaswrath]

Originally Posted by AGAV13

Let's not forget people, 2 years is a long time away. A lot of technological advancement can happen in this time.

Like flux capacitors!

[HBspeed]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

I hope you guys wrote this all up and mailed it to Santa, because you've got better chances getting what you want from him than you do BMW.

Srsly, every one of you needs to go to this site and start reading. Read every last bit of it. I know it's in half-broken english, but you'll come away enlightened.

http://www.autozine.org/technical_sc...ine/Index.html



Fuel efficiency isn't magic. It's the result of physics and engineering. Naturally aspirated engine technology is just about tapped out. Between variable valve lift/timing and direct injection, there aren't many more gains left in the naturally aspirated formula.

When you rotate an engine assembly, a specific volume of air must move through the engine, and because of the stoichiometric ratio requirements, this requires a fixed minimum amount of fuel for a given displacement of engine. The advantage of a turbocharger is that you have what is essentially a variable-displacement engine. Under boost, you can get the air-fuel volume of an engine that is 1.5x (or more!) the displacement. You simply cannot do this with a naturally-aspirated engine. Additionally, everything that makes an engine work well at high-rpm causes you pain and suffering at the low end. It's a recipe for poor fuel economy.

We'd all love to go back to the glory days of 8,000 RPM wonder-machines, but emissions and fuel economy regulations won't allow it. You're wasting your breath.

The gas mileage efficiency argument is true and all, but I don't see why anyone buying an M2 would care. It's going to be a very low volume car, and the effects on BMW's entire fleet mileage average would be negligible.

I don't know what makes some one "un-enlightened" for thinking an S55 block could be re-engineered to not run boost. Obviously changes would be made, the compression ratio increased, etc. But the upgraded architecture and internals of an S55 would undoubtedly make a quality platform for such an engine.

You are insinuating that modern boosted engines built by BMW are by design boost reliant, and cannot be run without this component of their initial design regardless of any reasonable amount of re-engineering. Please provide evidence if this is so, beyond blanket statements and posting a link to something with no relevance to the specific BMW issue in question.

Otherwise I still contend that if there is a will there is a way, and BMW would not have to construct an entirely bespoke engine architecture to do so.

Obviously, it is extremely unlikely BMW has the will for such. No one has illusions otherwise. We as the consumers can request anything we want, and BMW can offer anything they want. The only question that matters is what BMW thinks will be more profitable. The issue is BMW knows people will buy anything they slap an M badge on and call a "Core-M" based purely on reputation. Sure it may work for the time being, but if people want something unique for their 50-60k and not just another 4 cylinder turbo amongst a sea on them... money talks and we will see.

The strong sales of the 2.0L 4 Cylinder AMG's is surely driving their current direction, but the people who buy those are not generally concerned with the joys of a highly controllable/reliable track machine RWD sports car like the M2's enthusiast target buyers are.

Currently BMW is counting on their well deserved racing and M heritage to convince the market that they should be trusted in their first attempts at making modern turbo-charged, track-worthy, M cars. The history of the N54 and N55 engines for track duty has not portended well so far.

Therefore they are asking for a lot of faith going into this new cost savings and efficiency oriented direction when it comes to their M cars. If this new generation of modular 2.0L/3.0L/4.0L turbo M engines does not hold up to their glorious reputation built on naturally aspirated engines, it is going to cost the reputation of M a massive blow.

If the M3/M4 falls short on sales projections because for the first time it has lost the factor of having a unique/special (or even worse track-worthy) engine versus its growing competition... BMW and it's bean counters might just suddenly find the will to produce a single low-volume car that bucks the trend.

[positiveions]

Excited to see what this car has to offer.

[flinchy]

Originally Posted by dmboone25

Oh I hear you - I'm just guessing as to where the thinking would have to be.

I suppose we could have a different I6 by then too - the N55's replacement. I bet it will be even lighter as well, whatever they call it and whenever it actually shows up.

But a 4 cylinder with a red line at 9000 or more....well that just seems like it could be interesting.

without a doubt that would be interesting, especially if they could get it down to <3000#

just whether it's a 'good idea'... BMW going for a 'but it's fun!!11' like the toyobaru? i don't know if that'd go down well at their price point, it HAS to be really quick.

ED: calling it.. 2.5L 5cyl M2.

[pkimM3r]

Damn i want this m2 so bad. More sportier than an m3 i suppose. But the m3 is so good at double duty. If it does come to fruition, it better be real sporty, as in, those that want comfortable need not apply.

The other thing is although im excited about a potential high strung low weight 4banger, i thought i left that when i moved on from hondas and evos. Although the evos were slightly less in power, it was exciting and quick but also lacked the top end power and speed that one becomes accustomed to when moving on. I mean my evo after it was tuned to 450/411 to all four wheels finally felt really fast bottom mid and top end. At 350/300 to the rear wheels, this car better be under 3000 pounds. Hopefully a target weight of 2800-2900 WITH fluids. How much do porsches weigh? How the hell do they get their cars so light with nice things inside. Guess its why its expensive??

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by thomps

Not sure where people are getting the impression that 4 cylinder motors are so constrained power-wise. I have some bias, coming over from the Evo/STi world, but if you look at what those cars have been doing for years, and doing so reliably, you would have more faith in the M2 to be an absolute track beast, even with a 4 cyl.

I also understand there is more to power than just the peak numbers. You also want a usable power curve. The point remains that even the most conservative enthusiasts in the Evo/STi communities have been getting 350+WHP out of 2.0-2.5L 4cyl motors on stock twin-scroll turbo chargers with usable low-mid range power. Will it pull like a V8 from 1000rpm? No. But a fraction of a second later you'll forget the difference, and you'll surely make up for any delay with increased agility.

The real top-end only beasts with the dreaded turbo lag you hear about exist in the realm of 500WHP Evos with gigantic bolt-on Garrett turbos and the lack of adequate tuning and complimentary modifications to generate a usable power curve.

On the other hand, we're talking about giving ///M engineers two years to figure out how to extract, at the most, maybe ~375hp and 375lb/ft, at the crank, of usable power out of a turbocharged 4cyl, and you're worried? Even if this thing comes out with ~350hp and the same 332lb/ft with a slightly later delivery, the weight savings will make it fly.

I understand the perspective if you're somewhat of a purist and haven't had a ton of exposure to high-performing 4cyl motors. In that position, I too would look at the CLA running near 30PSI to get a mere 360hp and wonder whether that's even usable power or a sustainable setup. But if you look outside the obvious comparison car in the CLA, you will see that people all over the industry are doing amazing things with 4cyl motors.

I also came from the evo world....after getting into an m3 the evo just lacked that top end that smaller engines have. Im hoping the 2 yrs they have to develop this will alleviate such top end drop off.

Im happy with the current speed of my e90m. Im sure the new m3/4 will toast it. If they can make an m2 with similar speed as the current m3, i will be super happy. I just need a car that is light, handles like hell, and delivers power all the way to about 140mph. Is that too much to ask for?

I will take one with no options, and dct.

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

They'll make some compromises. I assure you BMW has the capability to make more than 141hp/liter with the N55/S55 platform; just turn up the boost. The question is, what would the character of that engine be? Read/listen to reviews of the new M235i vs the CLA/A45 AMG. Nearly every review I've read has mentioned the fact that there is less waiting for torque delivery in the M235i. This is because of the larger base displacement. A light pressure turbo attached to a large displacement engine delivers a more linear driving experience than a high pressure turbo attached to a small displacement engine.

This exactly.

And I don't want a 4 cylinder engine in a 70/80k euros car tbh.

4 vs 6 handling: Look at 1M at turn in , probably the most agile BMW from the last decade, and that's a 6 upfront.

It's just marketing and environmental stuff @ //M: 2=4cyl, 3=6cyl 5=8cyl.

If the M2 gets (even a detuned) S55 it will destroy the new M3/4, simple as that.


Or it will be the M235i + LSD in a couple of years or I just keep the 1M.

Cheers
Robin

[Robin_NL]

double post.

[Aust350z]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

Read/listen to reviews of the new M235i vs the CLA/A45 AMG. Nearly every review I've read has mentioned the fact that there is less waiting for torque delivery in the M235i. This is because of the larger base displacement.

+2 from what the guy above.

Also what I posted here earlier about my test drive of an A45 and why I've been waiting for the M235i to compare power delivery. There is a small but noticeable spool lag. Not as pronounced as the A250 but its still there.

I'm keen as hell for a M2 so I'll wait and compare the M235i and M2 in a few years time. As good as the M2 might be - I may prefer the power delivery of the larger displacement M235i and pick up the LCI.

[RedGT3RS]

Originally Posted by Thurman Murch

Who would even mention the FT86/BRZ? That is a POS car

IMO VAG makes the best I4s so far...

If the M2 is under 3K pounds, has ~350 hp and comes in DCT and manual will smoke all other rivals

The CLA looks like a dong

BMW is still pretty much competing with itself so hopefully it brings the 1M replacement sooner and then I'm sure there would be a M2GC

BMW is the answer unless you want to jump to Porsche or Aston

This is funny! A FRS/BRZ a pos?? Haha, you're the first to say this, Chris Harris and numerous publications have praised the car, not to mention many that have driven it. For what it is , 25k car, offers thrills of fun... Like others have said : a 90's throwback car

Like how you said a CLA looks like a dong. Guess that's the first thing that popped up in your mind.

Don't know how you got Aston in the same sentence as porsche and bmw? Completely different cars than a P CAR and a bmw. What are you talking about?

[BMW269]

Just to inform you, the Boxster/Cayman will get more power, but from a turbocharged Flat 4.

[HBspeed]

Originally Posted by Levi

Just to inform you, the Boxster/Cayman will get more power, but from a turbocharged Flat 4.

Yup that's true unfortunately. That's why I already got my mid-engined Porsche. Boxster Spyder 3.4L Naturally Aspirated Flat 6.

I have zero interest in a turbocharged Flat 4 in such a car (Boxster/Cayman). Whats the point? Wow I have more torque and better gas mileage Cause that's totally why I bought such a car...