[W///]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

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

And imagine the 1M with a light 4 pot up front. And imagine what it would be like if it had extensive CF like the M3/4. That to me is such an enticing proposition.

I absolutely love the idea of an M2. I just hope BMW provides either a sedan or a GC, that would be amazing.

[dmboone25]

Originally Posted by flinchy

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.

Now there's an idea no one has mentioned--a 5 cylinder? Audi seems to do quite well with their respective 5 bangers.

The one in the TT-RS is supposed to be an absolute stud of an engine. That extra displacement would certainly "assist" BMW in getting to the target power range, whatever that might be.

I also think that 5 cylinders have an interesting sound, and it is something you don't hear all the time, which is nice. Unique might be the overall point of an M2--something along those lines for the engine choice would be fun to discuss.

[SCOTT26]

The timescale works absolutely in favour with the new BMW M3 and BMW M4 Coupe because a gap of two years allows establishment and progress. By this time there will be the Competition Package for the M3 and M4 and there will also be progress for the two cars in an additional specification.

Then you have to think about the next M5 and its leap in technology , lightweight and power increase to just over 600 PS. Granted the M5 won't be on the market at this point but the arrival will be just over twelve months from the G30.
This is where the gap opens for the M2 and there will be ample room for co-existence.

The interesting thing that really shows progress, is that on a presentation briefing between Toyota and BMW on the Z4 Replacement which is the Z3 is the ability to integrate super sports car specifications into that car by extensive use of Carbon Fibre. The Z3 will be the first car , along with its Toyota twin to use a Carbon tub in its price range for a premium manufacturer even undercutting the Alfa Romeo 4C. The bonnet lid and bootlid will also be CFRP and as will areas of the suspension.

It leads to possibly further advances of CFRP on the M2 as the time frame allows for further and extensive application.
The four cylinder resonates with the approach to lightweight application over numbers.
The new BMW M3 and M4 begin the Carbon revolution at M. It's not all about the numbers its about precision through weight reduction.

To understand the significance. Look at that Carbon bodied Maybach at around 1 million dollars. Granted the 7er will not be extensive in application but with all the key panels approached to be fabricated from CFRP it will be far , far less than that Maybach , not even a fraction of the cost. That is how important this is.
Later this year as BMW begin the roll out to the first BMW to adopt a significant lightweight approach their will be media Technology days where you will understand the full outline of how innovative and beneficial this will be for BMW.

Start to get excited.

[IEDEI]

Scott26: is this about lightness or efficiency? or both.

having driven 4 bangers all my life, and now in a turbo 6----I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by the choice of a 4 banger in the M2. No matter how strung out a 4 is-----it never produces the kind of power you get from a 6....or the sound.

[rca06Mcoupe]

www.leftlanenews.com/bmw-m2.html


today's "edition"
a 2016 M2 rumored but 6 cylinder

A while back LL news reported the eventual M2 would share an engine with the new Z model.

(If this link does not work cld someone else post it correctly?)

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by HBspeed

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 agree that M2 buyers probably aren't all that concerned with fuel economy, but the other part of the argument is, I believe, where this reasoning falls down.

Fuel economy is very tightly linked to weight. F=ma, and all that jazz. Driving a car is a repetitive process of accelerating the mass of the car to operating speed, then slowing it down again. Outside of hybrid cars, the slowing part wastes all the energy you've input, so all things being equal (engine efficiency, aerodynamics, driving style, driving route), a car of greater weight will have worse fuel economy.

I think you grossly underestimate how poor the fuel economy of high-revving engines is and its impact on fleet averages and sales. While M2 enthusiast consumers might not be focused on fuel economy, it would definitely have an impact in the overall market. When your average joe M2 buyer compares the M2 to the CLA45 AMG and S3, a huge difference in fuel economy would have them scratching their head. Have a look at the typical numbers for N/A vs FI:

E92 M3 (3704 lbs): 14/20 mpg
E46 M3 (3415 lbs): 14/22 mpg
E82 1M (3362 lbs): 19/26 mpg

On the city side of the equation, the 1M Coupe sees a 36% improvement in fuel economy[1] for a 2% reduction in weight[2]. Do you think BMW can afford to leave a 36% improvement on the table in a competitive market?

1: (19 - 14)/14
2: (3415 - 3362)/3415

Originally Posted by HBspeed

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.

You sound like an intelligent guy. I don't mean to insult your intelligence in any way, but I think you're running in to a bias called the Dunning-Kruger effect. What you don't know about engine design is affecting your ability to reason through this, but you aren't factoring in that you don't know much about engine design.

I'm not saying that they couldn't take the N55 block and make a N/A engine from it. What I'm saying is that you underestimate the number of changes required to do that, and you overestimate the quality of the outcome. When you turbocharge an engine, you are forcing air through the engine. This is fundamentally different than a N/A engine.

Engineering is full of compromises. You want components to be light, but you also want them to be strong. You want them to be light and strong, but you can't make the entire engine from titanium because it would make the engine too expensive to produce. So, you compromise.

When you turbocharge an engine, you're changing the intake pressure from a negative value to a positive one. Go read up on that Autozine Technical site about the challenges first encountered when manufacturers started putting four valves in an engine. Read about the compromises and solutions they came up with. Now, recognize that when you turbocharge an engine, you have a completely different set of compromises to make.

For example the temperature the exhaust gas around the exhaust valve of a naturally aspirated engine gets hot, but it doesn't get anywhere near as hot as a turbocharged engine. The exhaust area of a turbocharged engine gets hot enough to cause a huge cast iron manifold to glow. A standard mild steel exhaust manifold would literally melt under the heat and pressure. Because of this, you want extra cooling around the exhaust manifold, so the heads on a turbocharged engine will have larger water jackets to keep the exhaust valve area from self-destructing. Larger water jackets must be fed by larger water exchange ports between the block and the head. Larger exchange ports mean more water must be supplied by the water pump... and down the rabbit hole we go.

That is just one example. There are a series of cascading engineering considerations that should be made in order to build a turbocharged engine that is reliable enough for a production car. The changes aren't huge, but they're numerous. It's not like a turbocharged engine block can't be used for a high-revving N/A setup; it's just that it's not optimal.

Originally Posted by HBspeed

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.

There is a way. There is always a way. But the engine you're describing would be far more bespoke than, for example, the differences between the N55 and the S55.

Originally Posted by HBspeed

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.

Naturally aspirated engines are a thing of the past. Their fuel economy is too poor, and the automotive press, as well as consumers, have fallen in love with the day-to-day drivability of a turbocharged engine with a fat torque curve. The vast majority of consumers (including M buyers) will read the latest review in Road & Track/Car & Driver/Automobile/etc and believe what is written on the page. Given how well reviewed the current crop of turbocharged engine powered sport compacts have been, why would BMW take a flier on a formula that is clearly on the wane (from a market perspective)?

If your position hinges upon profitability, then BMW need not be concerned about alienating the enthusiast market, because the enthusiast market is so tiny that its effect on sales would be measured in basis-points, not percentages.

Originally Posted by HBspeed

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.

Man, it's awesome to read something so nostalgic. BMWs haven't been sold on racing and M heritage for a long while. What do you think BMW's marketing budget was last year? How closely related do you think the BMW Z4 GTLM/GT3 or BMW M3 DTM car is to the road car? How well attuned do you think the average consumer is to the reliability of those cars from a motorsport perspective?

The reputation of BMW's past will carry it much further than you think. It can do this because of their marketing engine. BMW doesn't have to produce another E30 M3, because their marketing engine can just throw up a well produced video of the E30 M3 next to whatever new car they're selling, creating an emotional connection in the minds of consumers.

I think the new M2, M3, and M4 are going to be fantastic cars. I think they're going to be well reviewed, and I think they're going to sell better than any M-cars before them. I do not, however, think they'll be very much like the M-cars of the past. That is the way of progress. You can choose to embrace it or to fight it, but you cannot stop it.

[bradleyland]

My M2 predictions based on what we've learned from the M3/M4, SCOTT26's input, and automotive trends:

Engine: N20 derived S20 I4 engine. Displaces 2.0L with a turbocharger, air-to-water intercooler like the S55. Power output between 300 and 330 HP; yes, the same or less than the N55 in the M235i. The usual forged crank upgrade and other light-weight components will be highlighted.

Weight: Weight reduction in the area of 8-10% when compared to the M235i. Target (unladen) weight around 1400 kg [1]. Light weight will be a major focal point of the car, slotting in right behind road holding and agility ("dynamics").

1: Based on leaked "unladen" weight of 3373.1lbs from Bimmerpost official M235i specs thread. My prediction is that it will be 8-10% lighter, which means the target weight may be adjusted up or down based on the published US curb weight of M235i (currently not listed on the BMW website).

Performance: The M2 will not focus on blazing fast acceleration or quarter mile time, but will excel in road holding and handling. 0-100km/h acceleration will drop in right between the fastest 2-series (M235i @ 4.8s) and the slowest M4 (M4 6MT @ 4.3s), coming in at 4.5s to 4.6s.

Chassis: In order to achieve the 8-10% weight loss, extensive use of carbon fiber will be seen, especially at the extremities (fenders, trunk lid, etc). The goal will be to keep the car's mass as close to the center as possible for a low polar moment of inertia. This quality will give the car an agile feel that will surprise automotive journalists. Look for creative positioning of components like the battery (maybe even under the back seat).

Pricing: Price will be well north of the M235i coupe in order to protect up-line models, filling the pricing gap between the 435i M-Sport and the M4. Look for a base price at around $52,000; a $5,000 increase over the base 1M Coupe price.

Memorialized here for future embarrassment when I'm completely wrong. I'll post a photo of my face covered in egg if they release a $45k, naturally aspirated, 8k redline, 333 HP, S25 powered M2 that weighs 1250 kg and does 0-100km/h in 4.0s

[brio]

bradyland....good points. Definitely makes a lot of sense.

[dmboone25]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

My M2 predictions based on what we've learned from the M3/M4, SCOTT26's input, and automotive trends:

Engine: N20 derived S20 I4 engine. Displaces 2.0L with a turbocharger, air-to-water intercooler like the S55. Power output between 300 and 330 HP; yes, the same or less than the N55 in the M235i. The usual forged crank upgrade and other light-weight components will be highlighted.

Weight: Weight reduction in the area of 8-10% when compared to the M235i. Target (unladen) weight around 1400 kg [1]. Light weight will be a major focal point of the car, slotting in right behind road holding and agility ("dynamics").

1: Based on leaked "unladen" weight of 3373.1lbs from Bimmerpost official M235i specs thread. My prediction is that it will be 8-10% lighter, which means the target weight may be adjusted up or down based on the published US curb weight of M235i (currently not listed on the BMW website).

Performance: The M2 will not focus on blazing fast acceleration or quarter mile time, but will excel in road holding and handling. 0-100km/h acceleration will drop in right between the fastest 2-series (M235i @ 4.8s) and the slowest M4 (M4 6MT @ 4.3s), coming in at 4.5s to 4.6s.

Chassis: In order to achieve the 8-10% weight loss, extensive use of carbon fiber will be seen, especially at the extremities (fenders, trunk lid, etc). The goal will be to keep the car's mass as close to the center as possible for a low polar moment of inertia. This quality will give the car an agile feel that will surprise automotive journalists. Look for creative positioning of components like the battery (maybe even under the back seat).

Pricing: Price will be well north of the M235i coupe in order to protect up-line models, filling the pricing gap between the 435i M-Sport and the M4. Look for a base price at around $52,000; a $5,000 increase over the base 1M Coupe price.

Memorialized here for future embarrassment when I'm completely wrong. I'll post a photo of my face covered in egg if they release a $45k, naturally aspirated, 8k redline, 333 HP, S25 powered M2 that weighs 1250 kg and does 0-100km/h in 4.0s

This is a nice and succinct summary of where my mind has been as well--Porsche has done the "slotting" with their cars with great success over the years...this will be an opportunity for M to do it as well. I really think, and hope, that you're basically right. It's an awesome formula, and not one that requires a flux capacitor.

IIRC the 1M was around 4.6 seconds to 100 kph, so we have seen BMW's willigness to produce a car with these general specs.

The real magic, if they are to go this route, would be for more character from the engine vs. the 1M, and a better handling experience for the driver.

If they can pull it off, this will be one hell of a machine.

[golf_234]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

I agree that M2 buyers probably aren't all that concerned with fuel economy, but the other part of the argument is, I believe, where this reasoning falls down.

Fuel economy is very tightly linked to weight. F=ma, and all that jazz. Driving a car is a repetitive process of accelerating the mass of the car to operating speed, then slowing it down again. Outside of hybrid cars, the slowing part wastes all the energy you've input, so all things being equal (engine efficiency, aerodynamics, driving style, driving route), a car of greater weight will have worse fuel economy.

I think you grossly underestimate how poor the fuel economy of high-revving engines is and its impact on fleet averages and sales. While M2 enthusiast consumers might not be focused on fuel economy, it would definitely have an impact in the overall market. When your average joe M2 buyer compares the M2 to the CLA45 AMG and S3, a huge difference in fuel economy would have them scratching their head. Have a look at the typical numbers for N/A vs FI:

E92 M3 (3704 lbs): 14/20 mpg
E46 M3 (3415 lbs): 14/22 mpg
E82 1M (3362 lbs): 19/26 mpg

On the city side of the equation, the 1M Coupe sees a 36% improvement in fuel economy[1] for a 2% reduction in weight[2]. Do you think BMW can afford to leave a 36% improvement on the table in a competitive market?

1: (19 - 14)/14
2: (3415 - 3362)/3415



You sound like an intelligent guy. I don't mean to insult your intelligence in any way, but I think you're running in to a bias called the Dunning-Kruger effect. What you don't know about engine design is affecting your ability to reason through this, but you aren't factoring in that you don't know much about engine design.

I'm not saying that they couldn't take the N55 block and make a N/A engine from it. What I'm saying is that you underestimate the number of changes required to do that, and you overestimate the quality of the outcome. When you turbocharge an engine, you are forcing air through the engine. This is fundamentally different than a N/A engine.

Engineering is full of compromises. You want components to be light, but you also want them to be strong. You want them to be light and strong, but you can't make the entire engine from titanium because it would make the engine too expensive to produce. So, you compromise.

When you turbocharge an engine, you're changing the intake pressure from a negative value to a positive one. Go read up on that Autozine Technical site about the challenges first encountered when manufacturers started putting four valves in an engine. Read about the compromises and solutions they came up with. Now, recognize that when you turbocharge an engine, you have a completely different set of compromises to make.

For example the temperature the exhaust gas around the exhaust valve of a naturally aspirated engine gets hot, but it doesn't get anywhere near as hot as a turbocharged engine. The exhaust area of a turbocharged engine gets hot enough to cause a huge cast iron manifold to glow. A standard mild steel exhaust manifold would literally melt under the heat and pressure. Because of this, you want extra cooling around the exhaust manifold, so the heads on a turbocharged engine will have larger water jackets to keep the exhaust valve area from self-destructing. Larger water jackets must be fed by larger water exchange ports between the block and the head. Larger exchange ports mean more water must be supplied by the water pump... and down the rabbit hole we go.

That is just one example. There are a series of cascading engineering considerations that should be made in order to build a turbocharged engine that is reliable enough for a production car. The changes aren't huge, but they're numerous. It's not like a turbocharged engine block can't be used for a high-revving N/A setup; it's just that it's not optimal.



There is a way. There is always a way. But the engine you're describing would be far more bespoke than, for example, the differences between the N55 and the S55.



Naturally aspirated engines are a thing of the past. Their fuel economy is too poor, and the automotive press, as well as consumers, have fallen in love with the day-to-day drivability of a turbocharged engine with a fat torque curve. The vast majority of consumers (including M buyers) will read the latest review in Road & Track/Car & Driver/Automobile/etc and believe what is written on the page. Given how well reviewed the current crop of turbocharged engine powered sport compacts have been, why would BMW take a flier on a formula that is clearly on the wane (from a market perspective)?

If your position hinges upon profitability, then BMW need not be concerned about alienating the enthusiast market, because the enthusiast market is so tiny that its effect on sales would be measured in basis-points, not percentages.



Man, it's awesome to read something so nostalgic. BMWs haven't been sold on racing and M heritage for a long while. What do you think BMW's marketing budget was last year? How closely related do you think the BMW Z4 GTLM/GT3 or BMW M3 DTM car is to the road car? How well attuned do you think the average consumer is to the reliability of those cars from a motorsport perspective?

The reputation of BMW's past will carry it much further than you think. It can do this because of their marketing engine. BMW doesn't have to produce another E30 M3, because their marketing engine can just throw up a well produced video of the E30 M3 next to whatever new car they're selling, creating an emotional connection in the minds of consumers.

I think the new M2, M3, and M4 are going to be fantastic cars. I think they're going to be well reviewed, and I think they're going to sell better than any M-cars before them. I do not, however, think they'll be very much like the M-cars of the past. That is the way of progress. You can choose to embrace it or to fight it, but you cannot stop it.

Originally Posted by bradleyland

My M2 predictions based on what we've learned from the M3/M4, SCOTT26's input, and automotive trends:

Engine: N20 derived S20 I4 engine. Displaces 2.0L with a turbocharger, air-to-water intercooler like the S55. Power output between 300 and 330 HP; yes, the same or less than the N55 in the M235i. The usual forged crank upgrade and other light-weight components will be highlighted.

Weight: Weight reduction in the area of 8-10% when compared to the M235i. Target (unladen) weight around 1400 kg [1]. Light weight will be a major focal point of the car, slotting in right behind road holding and agility ("dynamics").

1: Based on leaked "unladen" weight of 3373.1lbs from Bimmerpost official M235i specs thread. My prediction is that it will be 8-10% lighter, which means the target weight may be adjusted up or down based on the published US curb weight of M235i (currently not listed on the BMW website).

Performance: The M2 will not focus on blazing fast acceleration or quarter mile time, but will excel in road holding and handling. 0-100km/h acceleration will drop in right between the fastest 2-series (M235i @ 4.8s) and the slowest M4 (M4 6MT @ 4.3s), coming in at 4.5s to 4.6s.

Chassis: In order to achieve the 8-10% weight loss, extensive use of carbon fiber will be seen, especially at the extremities (fenders, trunk lid, etc). The goal will be to keep the car's mass as close to the center as possible for a low polar moment of inertia. This quality will give the car an agile feel that will surprise automotive journalists. Look for creative positioning of components like the battery (maybe even under the back seat).

Pricing: Price will be well north of the M235i coupe in order to protect up-line models, filling the pricing gap between the 435i M-Sport and the M4. Look for a base price at around $52,000; a $5,000 increase over the base 1M Coupe price.

Memorialized here for future embarrassment when I'm completely wrong. I'll post a photo of my face covered in egg if they release a $45k, naturally aspirated, 8k redline, 333 HP, S25 powered M2 that weighs 1250 kg and does 0-100km/h in 4.0s

I still find it hard to believe they would make an N20 derived motor over an N55 derived motor, going from an I6 in the M235i to an I4 in the M2 would just seem so odd to me, I guess it is possible. I think a lot of customers, myself DEFINITELY included, would find it hard to swallow paying more for less, in a way. If that were the case, I would buy an M235i any day, well, I want to anyway. Not saying that it isnt a really capable platform, I just find the logic perplexing.

[ybbiz34]

I like the renders. Love the low and wide stance/look.

In photos, the M235i looks strangely tall and disproportionate to me.

[w3rkn]

Originally Posted by HBspeed

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...

That's kewl that you like to buy old things...

[w3rkn]

Originally Posted by IEDEI

Scott26: is this about lightness or efficiency? or both.

having driven 4 bangers all my life, and now in a turbo 6----I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by the choice of a 4 banger in the M2. No matter how strung out a 4 is-----it never produces the kind of power you get from a 6....or the sound.

Power to weight ratio...

Secondly, nobody is going to get more power out of BMW's inline-6's, other than BMW & affiliates. (Their new ECU is unbreakable.)

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by golf_234

I still find it hard to believe they would make an N20 derived motor over an N55 derived motor, going from an I6 in the M235i to an I4 in the M2 would just seem so odd to me, I guess it is possible. I think a lot of customers, myself DEFINITELY included, would find it hard to swallow paying more for less, in a way. If that were the case, I would buy an M235i any day, well, I want to anyway. Not saying that it isnt a really capable platform, I just find the logic perplexing.

The part highlighted in bold is, I think, why it is a probable outcome. The M235i is the car for people who insist on the I6.

I was, at first, recalcitrant at the prospect of an N20 derived powerplant in the M2, but a couple of factors have me convinced that it will be the case, and that it may even be a good thing:

1) BMW must differentiate the M2 from the M4. If they simply offer an "M4-lite", they will have created a sales parasite for their "most focused" sports car offering; that is quoted because that is how BMW staff frequently refer to the M3/4.

2) Even way back when the E36 was introduced, BMW was criticized for delivering a less focused car than the E30 before it. The E46, while well regarded today, was also criticized. The E92... You get the picture. BMW has a hole in its line-up. That hole was left by the E30 M3.

I believe the M2 is going to try to come as close as possible to the E30 M3 in spirit, but in a modern automotive context. There are certain things that are simply untenable. Yes, we would all love a high-revving, naturally-aspirated engine like the S14 or S54, but I don't believe that decision would survive the market, nor would it help BMW's long term fleet fuel economy performance.

If we look at the M2 in this context, and we ask ourselves whether the M2 would have an N55 derived engine, or something based on the N20, I think the answer becomes more clear that it would be the N20.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by HBspeed

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...

I want to take a timeout from prognosticating to say that I completely identify with your desire for a lightweight, naturally aspirated, focused sports car. I'm considering not buying an M235i or an M2, because I'm not sure it fits what I'm looking for in a car. I really want something focused and not turbocharged. It may be a Cayman, or it may be something used.

I'm weighing a lot of different options, some of which are downright crazy. I drove a '79 911SC with a 3.2 swap that had been warmed over to the tune of around 230 HP in a 2700 lb car. Unfortunately, it had some pretty nasty rot up front, so my search continues. After driving that car -- a car with no power steering even -- it feels very strange to go back to our numb X3.

What I'm saying is, I've forced myself to separate my wants from my predictions. We represent a very small portion of the market. Something like the FRS/BRZ actually fits the bill for what we're asking for. BMW isn't going to build that car. They can't, because there is no slot in their line-up for it. BMW has a company to run first, and while it's romantic to believe that this goal is best served by catering to enthusiasts, the reality is that the balance is skewed far more toward the mass market.

[imserious]

I concur with Bradleyland's prediction above. If correct, it will be a fantastic car. BMW will have to be careful not to make it too competitive with the M3/4. Lack of luxury upgrades, the 4 banger and slower straight line speeds will help the scores of M3 street racers feel better about their purchase. But this could very well be the track enthusiasts car to get. If they get weight close to 3k and power close to 300hp, this car is going to be a real peach on the track.

[Artemis]

Re the M2 cylinder discussion, see also the following thread featuring in the 1M section:
http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=926646 ("M2: would you mind a 4-cylinder layout ?")

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.

Another reason why BMW needs an M2 in its line-up (apart from a 'missing link' in the ///M line-up) is the public demand for a compact ///M car.

No doubt that weight is very important, but size matters too. Some length figures to put things into perspective (from small to big):

• F20 M135i: 170.9 in | 4340 mm
• E30 M3: 171.1 in | 4346 mm
• E82 1M: 172.4 in | 4380 mm
• F22 M235i: 174.5 in | 4432 mm
• F22 M235i Racing: 175.3 in | 4454 mm
• E46 M3: 176.8 in | 4491 mm (2001–02)
• E46 M3: 176.9 in | 4493 mm (2003–06)
• E9X M3: 180.4 in | 4582 mm
• F80 M3: 183.9 in | 4671 mm
• F82 M4: 183.9 in | 4671 mm

In January 2011 former ///M boss Dr. Kay Segler righteously coined the 1M as "basically a truncated M3 Competition Package with a manual" and added that the 1M didn't need more power for creating an instant classic. And as we all know, the rest is history. The extraordinary 1M experience certainly provided BMW some interesting marketing insights about a market for a compact ///M car, even if the price-tag is rather expensive (resale prices of a 1M are amongst the highest of the entire BMW portfolio - say no more).

I assume that many 1M owners plan to keep sitting on the fence, on the lookout for the M2 (and thus currently not fancying a trade-in for an M235i, M3 or M4), not quite bothered by the prospect of 4 instead of 6 cylinders.

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

They also want the M2 to be [...] the lightest performance car.

As regards weight, it will simply be impossible for the M2 to beat the dwarf: the Alfa Romeo 4C: 895kg (1973lbs). 4-banger with 1742cc engine, 241hp and 350Nm torque (0-62mph in 4.5s - Nürburgring lap in 08'04"). And Alfa has a hardcore 4C road version with LSD in the works (4C Stradale), a race version (4C Racing), as well as a targa version, prying on stealing sales away from BMW, Audi, Mercedes and Porsche in the performance car entry level department. True that the 4C is a 2-seater measuring less than 4m (157.0 in | 3989mm). So make your claim "They also want the M2 to be the lightest 4-seat performance car".

Originally Posted by bradleyland

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.

+1

Laws and regulations are also impacting passenger car engine choices. For example in Europe under the EU Cars Regulation, the fleet average to be achieved by ALL new cars is 130 grams of CO2 per kilometre (g/km) by 2015 – with the target phased in from 2012 - and 95g/km by 2020. If the average CO2 emissions of a manufacturer's fleet exceed its limit value in any year from 2012, the manufacturer has to pay an excess emissions premium for each car registered. This premium amounts to €5 for the first g/km of exceedance, €15 for the second g/km, €25 for the third g/km, and €95 for each subsequent g/km. From 2019, the cost will be €95 from the first gram of exceedance onwards (http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/t...s/index_en.htm).

Laws can be amended, certainly, but alike all other car manufacturers, BMW has to anticipate. It impacts choices. The days of absolute freedom in engine development are definitely gone.

[Jadar]

Originally Posted by golf_234

I still find it hard to believe they would make an N20 derived motor over an N55 derived motor, going from an I6 in the M235i to an I4 in the M2 would just seem so odd to me, I guess it is possible. I think a lot of customers, myself DEFINITELY included, would find it hard to swallow paying more for less, in a way. If that were the case, I would buy an M235i any day, well, I want to anyway. Not saying that it isnt a really capable platform, I just find the logic perplexing.

Porsche customers have been doing it for some time now.

Paying more for a cayman then a boxter never made sense but the cars sell. Especially the new 981 platform. No, it doesn't make sense and when had a coupe been more $?! But in Porsches world it makes perfect profitable sense.

It's so funny however when you jump north in the lineup the 911 convertible is more money then a coupe.

I guess no one said paying more for less makes sense but as long as people are dishing the money out...

[Mako]

Originally Posted by rca06Mcoupe

www.leftlanenews.com/bmw-m2.html


today's "edition"
a 2016 M2 rumored but 6 cylinder

A while back LL news reported the eventual M2 would share an engine with the new Z model.

(If this link does not work cld someone else post it correctly?)

NEVER take what you read on leftlanenews seriously, they have some of the worst articles/writers whatever you want to call it. They post rumors that are after official specs or rumors from legit sources are already out. Like the Lexus RCF would cost over $100K, when it clearly won't. Them saying the M2 will have 400 HP and a turbo I6 is just bad reporting, why on earth would BMW do that? lighter weight than a M4, just 25 horsepower less and $10K cheaper? don't think so.

[technik330]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

They want a car that has a soul, unlike the Mercedes-Benz AMG A45/CLA 45 which are soulless to drive.

... wait are you an auto journalist now?

When we see mules running around with tacked on fenders, quad exhaust and a rear diff heat sink, then you'll have my attention.

At times I swear you're like the Perez Hilton of BMW, spewing rumors for a living.

[riccappa]

Originally Posted by w3rkn

Power to weight ratio...

Secondly, nobody is going to get more power out of BMW's inline-6's, other than BMW & affiliates. (Their new ECU is unbreakable.)

Are you saying the car can't be tuned? I.e no JB4? It's still an N55, I'm sure BMS will figure it out.

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by technik330

... wait are you an auto journalist now?

When we see mules running around with tacked on fenders, quad exhaust and a rear diff heat sink, then you'll have my attention.

At times I swear you're like the Perez Hilton of BMW, spewing rumors for a living.

That is my opinion and I suggest if you want to discover this for yourself?
Drive the CLA in many ways possible then come back and drive the BMW 1er M coupe.

Get back to me...