[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by BenchRacerYo

Judging by all the replies following this one, I know I'm in the majority. The 1M was just a much better 135is.

Saying the 1M is more of an M car than the M3 is just ignorant and all around stupid.

I'll let EVO, Auto-Bild, Chris Harris and other bunch of morons who owned or still ownes both cars and unexplainably thought the 1M was 'even better' than the wonderful M3, let know about your refined opinion.

What kind of absurdity going on in this thread? Just flaming someone who told that he liked the 1M more! There really are lots of people like that and for good reason; on the other hand, all I find in these kind of posts are a deep hatred and insecurity.

You even forget that better half of your M3 is shared with the 1M, at least according to M Division that thinks and advertises that M cars are more about the chassis than the engine; 1M is almost same chassis of the M3 but is way smaller with a shorter wheelbase and considerably lighter too, with almost 50% more tq than the S65 can produce available from almost 5000 rpm before! How can it be anything bad? Because the engine can't rev up to 8400 rpm?

First of all, if you guys didn't like the 1M back then don't even think that you will like the F8X M3/M4 or a probable M2. Just keep your S65 equipped cars, which are wonderful cars that deserve good drivers and maybe stop throwing in threads on other cars or as a matter of fact, on any BMW developed after 2010!

[Mark's M]

Makes sense actually, from a performance standpoint but more importantly for BMW, from an economic standpoint. Truly hope that this 6 (or something along these lines) is the power plant for the eventual M2 .

[Roundown]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

I'll let EVO, Auto-Bild, Chris Harris and other bunch of morons who owned or still ownes both cars and unexplainably thought the 1M was 'even better' than the wonderful M3, let know about your refined opinion.

What kind of absurdity going on in this thread? Just flaming someone who told that he liked the 1M more! There really are lots of people like that and for good reason; on the other all I find in these kind of posts are a deep hatred and insecurity.

You even forget that better half of your M3 is shared with the 1M, which is also smaller with a shorter wheelbase and lighter too, with almost 50% more tq than the S65 can produce available from almost 5000 rpm before! How can it be anything bad?

First of all, if you guys didn't like the 1M back then don't even think that you will like the F8X M3/M4 or a probable M2. Just keep your S65 equipped cars and stop throwing in threads with other cars or any BMW developed after 2010!

Tq curve on the S65 is remarkably (for a high revving NA motor) flat at ~250 to it's peak of 295.

[TheDeliverator]

Originally Posted by lawgone

I feel dumber for having read the comments in this thread...especially the ones about the "cheap" n55 engine.

It's not about the N55 being cheap. It's about M division's history of putting M division motors in M cars. For example, the S55 has a different block than the N55.

The OP said Upgraded. Hopefully that means, S and not N. Nothing against N motors, but S motors belong in M cars.

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by riM3

Tq curve on the S65 is remarkably (for a high revving NA motor) flat at ~250 to it's peak of 295.

Yes, I know and I love that engine for what it is and the E90 and E92 M3s. I don't go and write unjustified and absurd things in M3 threads just to justify my purchase.

People need to learn to like what they have without cursing what others have. Of course, only if they want to sound like over 16.

[SW19]

Originally Posted by BimmerMat135

I hope that the N55 will help to keep the car price down. A 55K$ CAD M2 could be a very good value.

I would guess it will cost much more than that.Probably about $70,000 CDN fully loaded.

[BenchRacerYo]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

I'll let EVO, Auto-Bild, Chris Harris and other bunch of morons who owned or still ownes both cars and unexplainably thought the 1M was 'even better' than the wonderful M3, let know about your refined opinion.

What kind of absurdity going on in this thread? Just flaming someone who told that he liked the 1M more! There really are lots of people like that and for good reason; on the other hand, all I find in these kind of posts are a deep hatred and insecurity.

You even forget that better half of your M3 is shared with the 1M, at least according to M Division that thinks and advertises that M cars are more about the chassis than the engine; 1M is almost same chassis of the M3 but is way smaller with a shorter wheelbase and considerably lighter too, with almost 50% more tq than the S65 can produce available from almost 5000 rpm before! How can it be anything bad? Because the engine can't rev up to 8400 rpm?

First of all, if you guys didn't like the 1M back then don't even think that you will like the F8X M3/M4 or a probable M2. Just keep your S65 equipped cars and stop throwing in threads with other cars or any BMW developed after 2010!

He didn't say he liked the 1M more. He said the 1M was more of an M car than the M3. That is where our problem began.

I have no issue with someone liking the 1M more than the M3. But to go so far as to say it's more of an M car than the M3 is absurd.

No one doubts that the M3 is a true M car. Many doubt that the 1M is.

Also, you'll notice that most M3 owners DONT like the new F80/F82. So yep, we'll keep our S65s.

Lastly, 50% more torque?

370=50% more than 295?

I guess I'm not very good at math...


From the Motortrend test

"But is it better? Lieberman and I agree: No. This big, heavy, and expensive M3, with its unflappable confidence and lascivious powertrain, is the car we want, the car we'll remember as the best of the naturally aspirated Ms. It's the one we'll tell young gearheads about in a few decades with the same fondness and reverence as given its E30 ancestor. The 1M doesn't measure up to the M3's standard. Few cars do."

[BMW269]

Everybody knows it, DTM is going 2.0l I4, like the Japanese GT500 are now running 2.0l I4 engine.

It seems impossible for BMW not to develop a true M I4 engine. Even the BMW AG I4 engines is way behind its competitors.

Every car manufacturer/group has a 2.000 ccm I4 performance engine: VAG (well known 2.0 TFSI also participating in WRC), Daimler (AMG), Honda (coming in the new Civic Type R), Toyota (coming in new NX), Volvo (Drive E), Subaru (though Boxer), JLR (Hotfire), Ford (coming in new Focus RS) etc.

N55? Seriously this engine is outdated and is beaten by the competitors (Porsche/Audi, Mercedes, Cadillac, Maserati).

The B38 and B48 are now found in the 2er Active Tourer (not in their most powerful version), B58 should come too. But not in the 2er Coupé? Fail. This is beyond cheap.

[flinchy]

N55? So another 'not a real m' car? Woo!

[sdpauly]

IMHO, the only thing that makes sense, from an R&D perspective, to give the M2 it's own "bespoke" motor, would be to put the S55 in there. Maybe de-tuned to 400hp or something (but upgradable with aftermarket, of course) so as not to step on the M4 toes, even though I think it won't.

Again, BMW has thrown out the old nomenclature. M3 doesn't really mean what it used to. M4 and M2 are completely new and uncharted territory, there is no need to be held back by the norms of the past. Make both cars great and let the chips fall where they may. People that want a midsize coupe will buy the M4, people that want a small coupe will buy the M2, there is no need to hobble one over the other.

[ykkrox]

Whoa!

[///Mangler]

back to basics. Take the M3 engine and lop off 2 cyl like they did in 1986. lightweight, focused, Ultimate Driving ///Machine.




T

[momo3605]

Originally Posted by sdpauly

IMHO, the only thing that makes sense, from an R&D perspective, to give the M2 it's own "bespoke" motor, would be to put the S55 in there. Maybe de-tuned to 400hp or something (but upgradable with aftermarket, of course) so as not to step on the M4 toes, even though I think it won't.

Again, BMW has thrown out the old nomenclature. M3 doesn't really mean what it used to. M4 and M2 are completely new and uncharted territory, there is no need to be held back by the norms of the past. Make both cars great and let the chips fall where they may. People that want a midsize coupe will buy the M4, people that want a small coupe will buy the M2, there is no need to hobble one over the other.

Business business. BMW is aiming for high volume these days, and they accomplish that by making their cars softer and more comfy. The M3/M4 have a reputation so they can't screw that up. They can go cheap on R&D for the M2, since it likely won't be a volume seller.

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by BenchRacerYo

He didn't say he liked the 1M more. He said the 1M was more of an M car than the M3. That is where our problem began.

I have no issue with someone liking the 1M more than the M3. But to go so far as to say it's more of an M car than the M3 is absurd.

No one doubts that the M3 is a true M car. Many doubt that the 1M is.

Also, you'll notice that most M3 owners DONT like the new F80/F82. So yep, we'll keep our S65s.

Lastly, 50% more torque?

370=50% more than 295?

I guess I'm not very good at math...


From the Motortrend test

"But is it better? Lieberman and I agree: No. This big, heavy, and expensive M3, with its unflappable confidence and lascivious powertrain, is the car we want, the car we'll remember as the best of the naturally aspirated Ms. It's the one we'll tell young gearheads about in a few decades with the same fondness and reverence as given its E30 ancestor. The 1M doesn't measure up to the M3's standard. Few cars do."

Look, I even liked your response and that's all OK. Just don't quote me Motortrend, please, you are shooting yourself on the feet with that.

Actual wheel tq differences are around 50% or more tq yes. 1M makes that advertised tq (at crank) at the wheels and unlike that M3 is not an underrated car. My stock 1M was 29 whp behind a stock M3 on the same dyno, same day, conditions which is very much in line with lots of other documented testimonies on these two cars; hp difference is less than suggested, tq difference on the other hand is more than advertised. Overall effect, is same acceleration if M3 is also equipped with a manual.

There is no need to worship any car, M3 included. In fact, in my opinion F8X is the sixth generation of M3, not fifth; 1M is the fifth but since it was a bastard not granted to carry the family name

Cheers.

p.s. Please before hating a car that you don't understand, read the development story of the 1M, and tell me after that it doesn't carry the M spirit better than most if not all recent cars: http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=841751

[momo3605]

Originally Posted by ///Mangler

back to basics. Take the M3 engine and lop off 2 cyl like they did in 1986. lightweight, focused, Ultimate Driving ///Machine.




T

We all wish!

[momo3605]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

Look, I even liked your response and that's all OK. Just don't quote me Motortrend, please, you are shooting yourself on the feet with that.

Actual wheel tq differences are around 50% or more tq yes. 1M makes that advertised tq (at crank) at the wheels and unlike that M3 is not an underrated car. My stock 1M was 29 whp behind a stock M3 on the same dyno, same day, conditions which is very much in line with lots of other documented testimonies on these two cars; hp difference is less than suggested, tq difference on the other hand is more than advertised. Overall effect, is same acceleration if M3 is also equipped with manuals.

There is no need to worship any car, M3 included. In fact, in my opinion F8X is the sixth generation of M3, not fifth; 1M is the fifth but since it was a bastard not granted the family name

Cheers.

The 1M was an M3?

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by momo3605

Business business. BMW is aiming for high volume these days, and they accomplish that by making their cars softer and more comfy. The M3/M4 have a reputation so they can't screw that up. They can go cheap on R&D for the M2, since it likely won't be a volume seller.

Makes me wonder how Mercedes can develop a 2.0l I4 making ~360 PS for ony the A Class, CLA and GLA. It not like they are selling huge quantities. If they do, it just means they are better than BMW M.

[BenchRacerYo]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

Look, I even liked your response and that's all OK. Just don't quote me Motortrend, please, you are shooting yourself on the feet with that.

Actual wheel tq differences are around 50% or more tq yes. 1M makes that advertised tq (at crank) at the wheels and unlike that M3 is not an underrated car. My stock 1M was 29 whp behind a stock M3 on the same dyno, same day, conditions which is very much in line with lots of other documented testimonies on these two cars; hp difference is less than suggested, tq difference on the other hand is more than advertised. Overall effect, is same acceleration if M3 is also equipped with a manual.

There is no need to worship any car, M3 included. In fact, in my opinion F8X is the sixth generation of M3, not fifth; 1M is the fifth but since it was a bastard not granted to carry the family name

Cheers.

p.s. Please before hating a car that you don't understand, read the development story of the 1M, and tell me after that it doesn't carry the M spirit better than most if not all recent cars:

http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=841751" rel="ugc" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://www.1addicts....p?t=841751</a>

Never said I hated the car and you don't need to imply that I don't understand that car.

Also, 50% more torque than the M3 means the 1M makes 450. I find that hard to believe.

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by momo3605

The 1M was an M3?

Maybe: Pistonheads: The best M3? It's the 1M!

Read here: http://www.pistonheads.com/news/defa...?storyId=27027

[ozinaldo]

This is what EVO had to say after putting it against best available at the time:

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/carg...ssan_370z.html

and:

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...1m_review.html

Especially on THE topic, please check post#90 which contains a full scan of the EVO article on 'which one is better?' as well as their EVO COTY issue; other posts in that thread includes numerous reviews of the 1M:

http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showt...=520636&page=5

[Aust350z]

I'd love a I6.

But I'm more excited about an S48 than a old, used N55. If you're going to give me an I6 at least give me the S55 in my ///M!!

[bimmer4life24]

SCOTT. Where u at?