[CTSean]

Originally Posted by Juicehead

Wife has OG M2, I have an M2C. The M2C does feel slightly different, not sure what exactly it is, although hers is DCT and mine is manual.

Ill see if I can do a better comparison at some point.

The important question is whether the circumferences of the steering wheels (of the grip - not the wheel itself) are the same. Please measure and post your findings

feel free to add it here https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1584072

[ryem3]

Originally Posted by CTSean

The important question is whether the circumferences of the steering wheels (of the grip - not the wheel itself) are the same. Please measure and post your findings

feel free to add it here https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1584072

It has been measured and posted elsewhere. The circumference is different.

[Inuyasha]

I think the part number for the wheel is the same because it mounts to the car the same - steering wheel thickness perhaps not relevant for part#.

[ryem3]

Originally Posted by Tag

Don't have any seat time in the M2c yet (soon to change)

Originally Posted by dmboone25

Haven't had the chance to drive the M2C yet - really excited for M town, because I can drive our OG M2 and F80 right before the M2C. Should be a nice basis for comparison.

You guys have also been on this board for a long time. When you drive and compare, you'll notice the difference. I don't know if it's the compression or rebound settings, but the suspension feels different to me. I feel like the compression dampening is softer. Most of the other suspension tuning will effect ultimate handling and turn in, but that's not the factor here. There won't be any scientific evidence to offer, because this is a subjective evaluation. It also doesn't surprise me that BMW relaxed the suspension, the OG car was really stiff. I've directly compared my M2C back to back with a McLaren 570S and a 2018 GT3. Both of those cars have a smoother, more composed ride than even my M2C. I suspect BMW reacted to comments about the OG car and made changes.

[CTSean]

Originally Posted by Inuyasha

I think the part number for the wheel is the same because it mounts to the car the same - steering wheel thickness perhaps not relevant for part#.

Following that logic, there shouldn't be 4 part numbers for the clutch cylinder, which logically have to mount the same (though some of these are interchangeable and some are not)

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/enUS/part...&q=21526773670

For the record, I don't care if the M2C and M2 actually have different suspension - I'm just questioning the reuse of a part number number for functionally different parts (different spring rates, different rebound/compression/whatever shocks) when BMW otherwise uses part# versioning all over the place. They also use 2 different part#s for front springs for manual vs DCT (I've read a 55lb difference in the 2 transmissions)

[Anthony1s]

The whole "different suspension" debate is pointless unless someone can get two new shocks and test them for various differences.

Which means finding a new old stock m2 shock and verifying it's in fact a NOS shock. Then getting a m2c shock, and verifying it's a new m2c shock and not a leftover inventory NOS m2 shock. Which will be impossible since they share the same part numbers.

I don't think it's as simple as finding a M2, and taking it's shock off to compare to a M2C shock. Let's say we find a M2 with 6000 miles on it and a M2C with 6000 miles on it, that would be the closest we can get to having both cars with the same wear and tear. But there are still two problems with that. 1)was one car driven harder than the other, causing more wear and tear to it's shocks. and 2) we'd still have the variable of the M2 shock being older. Which I don't know how much shocks degrade over time.

We would also need manufacturing tolerances from the factory. Let's say BMW puts each shock through testing before it's sent to be put on a car. Well, what are the tolerances for a shock to pass vs fail. If they have a standard of something like "+/- 5% from this value is good" Well then, how do we know the differences we'd see in our independent shock test wouldn't be due to differences in acceptable tolerances from the factory.

There is also the margin of error in testing equipment. Which is mitigated by taking a bunch of tests and averaging them out.

And that's just shocks. Who's to say the difference isn't in the bushings or something else. Which would have to be tested too.

So yea, since none of this testing is possible and will ever happen... the whole "different suspensions" argument is pointless and unverifiable. Which is unfortunate because not knowing causes more headaches than anything.

btw, I'm the one who went out and measured the M2 vs M2C steering wheel. That was simple compared to this haha.

[Tag]

<rant>

I believe everyone that the M2c rides better than the M2. That's not my argument. The question is why? BMW would not change the functionality of a critical component and give it the same part number. Why? Because you do not mix matched spring and damper rates with other spring and damper rates. Doing so would upset the ride characteristics of the car and could even result in an accident. Example, an OG M2 has a blown out strut, you get the same PN strut which by some peoples theory has been "revised and improved" and install it. You now have a mismatch in your suspension. BMW would never do that. And before someone comments on replacing both struts, suspensions are tuned to all four corners meaning if you change the way the front is tuned you must change the rear shocks and springs to match and "go with the flow" as the suspension travels, otherwise it upsets the cars balance and can cause unpredictable and dangerous behavior.

Have heard the steering wheel diameter argument where the M2c is 1mm thinner in diameter, but that is has the same PN. BFD, that's not going to affect anything with the cars handling or performance. BMW has lots of parts like that, but they are not critical or affect anything else.

</rant>

[CTSean]

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

btw, I'm the one who went out and measured the M2 vs M2C steering wheel. That was simple compared to this haha.

and I was the other with photo data (for M2OG only) of the 4 data points collected (someone posted dimensions for an M2,M2C and an M4 but the dimension is not a circumference), the only conclusion that can be drawn is the circumference is variable

FalconUSAF - M2C is 4 1/2 inches (is it not clear how this was measured)
Anthony1s - M2 is 4 7/16
Anthony1s - M2C is 4 6/16
CTSean - M2 is 4 1/2 (measured in the same spot Anthony did) If I measure in a different spot I get 4 7/16

Granted, 4 datapoints is not a statistic, but I'd call that margin of error vs a change in design.

[Poochie]

Originally Posted by dmboone25

I think the "cosmetic" aspect of your rebuttal makes little difference - at the end of the day, it does appear as though BMW keeps part numbers the same while some aspect of the "newer" part can be different in reality.

I find it hard to believe that there's an internal distinction between different categories of parts, but I could be wrong of course.

Haven't had the chance to drive the M2C yet - really excited for M town, because I can drive our OG M2 and F80 right before the M2C. Should be a nice basis for comparison.

I know my simile was a stretch.. But it's just new to me that a factory part would change but not the part number. I sure there must be a certain tolerance allowed in variation before it's a required part number revision. :

At this point, I was just spitballing ideas and see which one sticks

This suspension mystery is quite intriguing..

[windnsea00]

That's me in the video, thanks for sharing!

[ChrisK]

Originally Posted by Tag

<rant>

I believe everyone that the M2c rides better than the M2. That's not my argument. The question is why? BMW would not change the functionality of a critical component and give it the same part number. Why? Because you do not mix matched spring and damper rates with other spring and damper rates. Doing so would upset the ride characteristics of the car and could even result in an accident. Example, an OG M2 has a blown out strut, you get the same PN strut which by some peoples theory has been "revised and improved" and install it. You now have a mismatch in your suspension. BMW would never do that. And before someone comments on replacing both struts, suspensions are tuned to all four corners meaning if you change the way the front is tuned you must change the rear shocks and springs to match and "go with the flow" as the suspension travels, otherwise it upsets the cars balance and can cause unpredictable and dangerous behavior.

Have heard the steering wheel diameter argument where the M2c is 1mm thinner in diameter, but that is has the same PN. BFD, that's not going to affect anything with the cars handling or performance. BMW has lots of parts like that, but they are not critical or affect anything else.

</rant>

^Totally agree!

Preface: I have owned a 2017 M2 and own a 2019 M2C

Yes, the M2C rides much smother.
No, BMW didn't change the parts on the suspension.

As TAG said: Can you imagine mix matched spring and damper rates? LIABILITY ISSUE!

The M2C's weight, struct brace, etc. --> Changed the driving/ride characteristics.


The steering wheel change... people that doesn't affect your safety!? CMON

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by CTSean

and I was the other with photo data (for M2OG only) of the 4 data points collected (someone posted dimensions for an M2,M2C and an M4 but the dimension is not a circumference), the only conclusion that can be drawn is the circumference is variable

FalconUSAF - M2C is 4 1/2 inches (is it not clear how this was measured)
Anthony1s - M2 is 4 7/16
Anthony1s - M2C is 4 6/16
CTSean - M2 is 4 1/2 (measured in the same spot Anthony did) If I measure in a different spot I get 4 7/16

Granted, 4 datapoints is not a statistic, but I'd call that margin of error vs a change in design.

Well, no. You measured in a different spot than I did. I measured on the left and you the right. Maybe there is no difference between sides, but for consistency, measurements should be taken in the same spot. Also you overlapped the tape. So the extra thickness could be coming from the tape itself. Also I'm not familiar with your tape measure, but every other tape measure I've ever used does not start measurements at the end of the tape, but at a little bit further up. It seems to me the start of your measuring tape is where your finger is covering (though I can't tell because your finger is covering it) If so, that would put your wheel at 5" thick.

Don't get me wrong, I would much rather be proved wrong and there be no change in the wheels. Just trying to make sure data is correct and consistent.

[CTSean]

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

Well, no. You measured in a different spot than I did. I measured on the left and you the right. Maybe there is no difference between sides, but for consistency, measurements should be taken in the same spot. Also you overlapped the tape. So the extra thickness could be coming from the tape itself. Also I'm not familiar with your tape measure, but every other tape measure I've ever used does not start measurements at the end of the tape, but at a little bit further up. It seems to me the start of your measuring tape is where your finger is covering (though I can't tell because your finger is covering it) If so, that would put your wheel at 5" thick.

Don't get me wrong, I would much rather be proved wrong and there be no change in the wheels. Just trying to make sure data is correct and consistent.

That is true - I forgot the pic was on the right - I had re-measured this morning on the left and got the same 4.5".

Re-remeasuring now, being as disciplined as possible with the tools available, measuring from the 1" mark to remove the end as a variable, then confirming my measurement against a precision 6 inch ruler (which I admit introduces some variablility) I get 4 15/32". I have the pics if you really want them. Like I said in the other thread, I apologize for not having a fabric tape graduated to 1/64"s

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by CTSean

That is true - I forgot the pic was on the right - I had re-measured this morning on the left and got the same 4.5".

Re-remeasuring now, being as disciplined as possible with the tools available, measuring from the 1" mark to remove the end as a variable, then confirming my measurement against a precision 6 inch ruler (which I admit introduces some variablility) I get 4 15/32". I have the pics if you really want them. Like I said in the other thread, I apologize for not having a fabric tape graduated to 1/64"s

No reason to be flippant, we have the same goal.

[CTSean]

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

No reason to be flippant, we have the same goal.

That was not my intention - I was just being painfully technical. you were correct - my initial measurement was a little sloppy

[CTSean]

Originally Posted by OGM2C

I read somewhere that the m2c uses more rose/heim joints at the rear

Now this is one that can be easily confirmed (or denied). I'm watching the Carfection review on youtube and it makes the same claim (around 4:15).

Anybody with an M2C wanna lay on the ground and take a picture of these new suspension arms with heim joints rather than rubber bushings? Are there really 2 versions?

We've already established the same part#s didn't change. And how does this work with the M3/4 using the same arms. Are the M3/4's "upgraded" with the M2C arms? Inquiring minds want to know.

For clarity one, or both, of the ends should NOT look like these ends
https://www.ecstuning.com/b-genuine-...g/33322284534/

[Tag]

This is worse than the open vs closed deck debate of the n55.

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by CTSean

That was not my intention - I was just being painfully technical. you were correct - my initial measurement was a little sloppy

Ah, sorry for misinterpreting.

[omasou]

Originally Posted by Tag

This is worse than the open vs closed deck debate of the n55.

I was thinking the same thing!

[TonyL128]

I owned a 2017 M2 which I traded in for a 2019 M2C. The 2017 only had 4900 miles on it when I traded it in, so the springs/dampers were not worn. Both cars are manual and stock. I took both cars to Laguna Seca and the M2C was 4 seconds quicker. On the road, there are no discernible differences on ride comfort. The M2C does have quicker pickup and top end power last well pass 7000 rpm. I loved both cars, and I don't regret upgrading to the M2C.

[Bobby P]

There will be another thread in a few months where M2C owners will claim that it's just as quick and good as the M2/CS and so on! It's quite entertaining. Just go enjoy your car folks...wow...

[termigni]

Originally Posted by TonyL128

I owned a 2017 M2 which I traded in for a 2019 M2C. The 2017 only had 4900 miles on it when I traded it in, so the springs/dampers were not worn. Both cars are manual and stock. I took both cars to Laguna Seca and the M2C was 4 seconds quicker. On the road, there are no discernible differences on ride comfort. The M2C does have quicker pickup and top end power last well pass 7000 rpm. I loved both cars, and I don't regret upgrading to the M2C.

that's a nice driving improvement on YOUR skills. M2C is not 4 seconds faster than M2 on Laguna Seca. Laguna Seca is about 2.23 miles long which is comparable length of Sachsenring (2.299 miles). On Sachsenring, Fastestlaps.com lists M2 at 1:37.65 and M2C at 1:37.15 which is pretty much dead even when driven by an Average Joe. A long track like Nurburging (16 miles) would show M2C's extra power 7:52 (M2C) vs. 7:58 (M2), difference of 6 seconds over 16 mile long track.