[Imran@Evolve]

     Featured on BIMMERPOST.com

We had the chance to dyno a stock M140i AT here today so thought it would be interesting to compare the results against a stock M2 DCT.

Both cars were using 99 RON Fuel (93 Oct) and have around 2500 miles on the clock.





The M140i is rated by BMW at 340 BHP and 369 lb.ft torque whereas the M2 is rated at 370 BHP 343 lb.ft torque.

Most of the modern BMW turbo cars make a little bit more than BMW quote on our Dyno Dynamics dyno. The M140i surprised us!

Red Line is M2 and Green Line is M140i.

Flywheel



Wheel Power



As you can see the M140i had a higher peak torque figure just like BMW figures suggest. Midrange of the M140i is also stronger but the top end of the M2 is slightly better.

Looks like the B58 should be a great platform for tuning.

[marcusfva]

So even the supposed 400HP for the M2 CS won't be enough to create a real performance gap between these cars.

And about the performance difference between the actual M2 and the Mx40i..we should probably not get into that.

[BruceM]

Originally Posted by marcusfva

So even the supposed 400HP for the M2 CS won't be enough to create a real performance gap between these cars.

And about the performance difference between the actual M2 and the Mx40i..we should probably not get into that.

"Performance" is a function of far more than horsepower and torque.

[CommitConfirm]

Originally Posted by BruceM

"Performance" is a function of far more than horsepower and torque.

Very true!


Having seen the dyno results it kinda stings a bit. I would have liked the M2 to have had a bigger performance gap. I wonder if I would have been just as happy in a well spec'd Mx40i?

On a daily driver I'd trade the better performance at the lower and mid ranges over a higher top end. Maybe they should build a B58 'LCI' M2?

[kiysersosae]

Originally Posted by CommitConfirm

Very true!


Having seen the dyno results it kinda stings a bit. I would have liked the M2 to have had a bigger performance gap. I wonder if I would have been just as happy in a well spec'd Mx40i?

On a daily driver I'd trade the better performance at the lower and mid ranges over a higher top end. Maybe they should build a B58 'LCI' M2?

if bmw reduce the weight of m2 and add 20-30bhp then the performance gap shown on that graph would mean nothing, the m2s power to weight would be far greater than it is now. . Even if they just reduced the weight by 70kg and added no power it would be miles ahead of the m140i

[kiysersosae]

Originally Posted by BruceM

"Performance" is a function of far more than horsepower and torque.

So true

[Karmic Man]

Originally Posted by marcusfva

So even the supposed 400HP for the M2 CS won't be enough to create a real performance gap between these cars.

And about the performance difference between the actual M2 and the Mx40i..we should probably not get into that.

Of course there will be a gap with the S55 M2 CS vs the B58 models.

You think the S55 M2 CS will just have 400hp? Think along the lines that how much the M3/M4 S55s had been underrated and you will have a more realistic figure with the CS.

[Karmic Man]

Originally Posted by kiysersosae

if bmw reduce the weight of m2 and add 20-30bhp then the performance gap shown on that graph would mean nothing, the m2s power to weight would be far greater than it is now. . Even if they just reduced the weight by 70kg and added no power it would be miles ahead of the m140i

If they can reduce more weight and keep it at the same price they would have done it already. Reducing weight means more exotic materials on the car means a higher cost on the car.

To further reduced weight by 70kg is totally unrealistic and even then it won't be 'miles' ahead of the 140i. 70kg is just the weight of a small adult and won't affect much in a straight line acceleration.

[zenmaster]

Originally Posted by CommitConfirm

Very true!


Having seen the dyno results it kinda stings a bit. I would have liked the M2 to have had a bigger performance gap.

Where have you been? Dynos the same as a 340i which has been out how long now?

[SeanWRT]

Speaking as a m2 owner, I am irritated looking at the graph.

1) N55 and B58 put down identical top end. You will think N55’s maxed out small turbo should spool faster as a tradeoff and make better low end torque. Well, it didn’t happen - B58 has longer stroke and higher compression ratio, which significantly helps down low when pressure isn’t built up.

2) Higher compression ratio means greater timing pull at high PSI and thus less efficient power and less tuneability. Well, it didn’t happen - B58 works just as fine at 15psi as N55.

3) Longer stroke means less free revving. Well, it didn’t happen, B58 rev all the way up to 7K rpm, nothing less than N55.

I would like to thank you for using RON99 so the N55 torque didn’t fall on your graph as much as we saw it does elsewhere.

Now you better tell me the 2 dyno weren't performed the same day please

[Robin_NL]

Exactly @ Sean...

BMW/M limited the M2 in any possible way putting in the 'low end' N55. Good old N54 is way more sophisticated/tunable and 'high end'. Only the sound is nice but for the rest it lacks grunt and power like S55(and high tech engineering)

I'm going to buy a bigger turbo for my N55 next year....

Cheers
Robin

[Imran@Evolve]

Originally Posted by SeanWRT

Speaking as a m2 owner, I am irritated looking at the graph.

1) N55 and B58 put down identical top end. You will think N55’s maxed out small turbo should spool faster as a tradeoff and make better low end torque. Well, it didn’t happen - B58 has longer stroke and higher compression ratio, which significantly helps down low when pressure isn’t built up.

2) Higher compression ratio means greater timing pull at high PSI and thus less efficient power and less tuneability. Well, it didn’t happen - B58 works just as fine at 15psi as N55.

3) Longer stroke means less free revving. Well, it didn’t happen, B58 rev all the way up to 7K rpm, nothing less than N55.

I would like to thank you for using RON99 so the N55 torque didn’t fall on your graph as much as we saw it does elsewhere.

Now you better tell me the 2 dyno weren't performed the same day please

They were performed on different days.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the figures. The M2 is more than its engine.

[SeanWRT]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

Exactly @ Sean...

BMW/M limited the M2 in any possible way putting in the 'low end' N55. Good old N54 is way more sophisticated/tunable and 'high end'. Only the sound is nice but for the rest it lacks grunt and power like S55(and high tech engineering)

I'm going to buy a bigger turbo for my N55 next year....

Cheers
Robin

I'd try Tune+Downpipe first before anything that's inreversible.

I am surprised there hasn't been more reviews/dyno on that setup it's been half a year.

[No Boost]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

I'm going to buy a bigger turbo for my N55 next year....

Cheers
Robin

Same here. That way I don't have to hear about the superiority of the B58/S55 in CS as compared to the N55. I'm also looking forward to a top end monster.

[marcusfva]

Originally Posted by Karmic Man

Of course there will be a gap with the S55 M2 CS vs the B58 models.

You think the S55 M2 CS will just have 400hp? Think along the lines that how much the M3/M4 S55s had been underrated and you will have a more realistic figure with the CS.

I think if the M2 CS's motor will be developed as the same way as the S55 M3/4, its crank power will be more or less what BMW will declare for it, because the matter about the underrated power of the M3/4 it appears maybe a little fallacy for European view (I've personally seen two dyno tests of two different stock M4 at my local tuner here in Italy and the results were both around 425-430HP crank, with 100RON).

You already surely know this interesting discussion (especially the 6th post):

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1206686

And for sure, I know very well that the M2 is not only its motor. I love it at all

[Bee Pee]

Originally Posted by Imran@Evolve

I wouldn't get too hung up on the figures. The M2 is more than its engine.

Yes lets hope so given that there's £20k premium for M2 v M140i.............you could buy an e46 M3 CS with the leftover change !!!!!

[Nine Lives]

Originally Posted by Bee Pee

Yes lets hope so given that there's £20k premium for M2 v M140i.............you could buy an e46 M3 CS with the leftover change !!!!!

Tell me about it,with barely a ciggy paper between 'em
( there's a thing,system doesn't like the word f*g ) in the performance stakes it doesn't take a genius to see which model has the highest take up...m240i included.

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by Karmic Man

Of course there will be a gap with the S55 M2 CS vs the B58 models.

You think the S55 M2 CS will just have 400hp? Think along the lines that how much the M3/M4 S55s had been underrated and you will have a more realistic figure with the CS.

I think I'd rather just have an S58..

[FogCityM3]

True, the S55 is one of the most egregiously underrated engines in BMW history. Given produces around ~470 bhp based on dynos (at the flywheel), the M2 CS version will probably be around ~440 bhp assuming the same proportion of under-rating.

Someone thinking the B58 will be some bargain engine that produces as much bhp as a dedicated M-engine and BMW will be "under-charging" for it, is simply deluding themselves.

Originally Posted by Karmic Man

Of course there will be a gap with the S55 M2 CS vs the B58 models.

You think the S55 M2 CS will just have 400hp? Think along the lines that how much the M3/M4 S55s had been underrated and you will have a more realistic figure with the CS.

[mmmpassion]

It looks like red and green line are from same motor with diff. runs. Sorry to say that.. .

[exmowner]

Originally Posted by mmmpassion

It looks like red and green line are from same motor with diff. runs. Sorry to say that.. .

Why would you be sorry, using your obvious vast mechanical logic?

Lmfao

Nice runs, can wait to get my hands on a m2. Perfect winter beater.

[JunkStory]

This example illustrates that the horsepower and torque ratings from the manufacturer is purely for marketing purposes.