RE: BMW M2: Review

[ellipsis]

Splendid little M. And well done to M GMBH for seeing it through.

Lee, I've tolerated some of your vitriol towards the E9x series M3.

I've listened to your valid account that that the S65B40 in a lighter vehicle would be an amazing proposition.

But now finally, may I join the legions gone before and politely ask you to STFU on this matter.

[kambites]

Even if the V8 is heavier, it could probably be mounted further back in the engine bay.

Sadly we'll never see another naturally aspirated M-car again, though. Fuel economy and CO2 figures are just too important these days.

[cerb4.5lee]

ellipsis said:

Lee, I've tolerated some of your vitriol towards the E9x series M3.

I've listened to your valid account that that the S65B40 in a lighter vehicle would be an amazing proposition.

But now finally, may I join the legions gone before and politely ask you to STFU on this matter.

Point taken.

[cerb4.5lee]

Patrick Bateman said:

GroundEffect said:

I will put money on the S65 being lighter as installed than the M2 unit.

This is what I thought but from what I could find the S55 is a bit lighter than the S65.

Struggling to find information on the version of the N55 in the M2.

I also thought that there wouldn't be much in it when you consider the Turbo's and related pipe work, pretty surprised to be honest that the S55 is lighter than the S65 and BMW were rightly pleased that the S65 was actually lighter than the S54 that preceded it.

Seems they work hard to make sure each new generation engine is lighter than the last one.

[joedesi]

Forget the weight or perceived lack of torque.

The S65 V8 made the M3 feel special. And that matters more than anything else in an M car.

[cerb4.5lee]

joedesi said:

Forget the weight or perceived lack of torque.

The S65 V8 made the M3 feel special. And that matters more than anything else in an M car.

From what I read it seems the N55/S55 do lack that specialness of the previous M engines it seems, I would like a go in one to see if it's a valid criticism.

I suppose as a general rule most prefer a N/A engine to a turbocharged one.

[Electra]

Just came back from a BMW M experience, 1.5 days at Falkenberg track, in southwest Sweden. We drove M3/M4s and the instructors drove 2 M2s. I had a few rides on the M2. The car goes very well, engine tractable, and chassis nicely balanced, sharp turn in. Seemed easier to drive in the rain compared to M3/M4, as much as I can say from the passenger seat of the M2. Obviously the instructors were more on choosing correct lines and braking points, than drifting... Interior a bit bland, but overall, I think, more homogenous car than the M3/M4.

Edited by Electra on Sunday 17th April 19:13

[fuchsiasteve]

Just looks like every other BMW to me. Usual kidney grill and conservative styling.

[sidesauce]

Krikkit said:

Dale487 said:

joedesi said:

Sounds like an awesome little car.

Could you imagine this car with the V8 from the E92 M3? Wow...

I think it would mess up the balance of the handling - too much weight at the front.

With the turbo gubbins I bet there's not much between the engines in terms of weight.

BMW S65 (E92 M3 engine) weight - 202 kgs (445 lbs): 15 kgs (33 lbs) lighter than the straight-6 engine it replaced

BMW N55 (F22 M2 engine) weight - 191 kgs (421 lbs), I believe this engine is approximately 4 kgs lighter than the N54 it replaced.

For comparison:-

BMW S55 (F80/F82 M3/M4 engine) weight - 205 kgs (452 lbs)

[MrBarry123]

I know it's a relatively trivial aspect of the car however the rubbish seats put me off this car and means I will never buy one, regardless of how good it is.

[Sam All]

MrBarry123 said:

I know it's a relatively trivial aspect of the car however the rubbish seats put me off this car and means I will never buy one, regardless of how good it is.

BMW desperate to fill every niche, some fuzziness and wonder if sales of their more profitable models will suffer.

[nunpuncher]

MrBarry123 said:

I know it's a relatively trivial aspect of the car however the rubbish seats put me off this car and means I will never buy one, regardless of how good it is.

Those seats also weigh about the same as the moon. The lovely Recaro CS M performance ones they sell for about £2k should be standard in this.

I remember reading an early interview with some M bod from BMW and they said the M2 was going to be more focussed and track orientated than the M4. I get people still want their luxuries and toys and they made it generally more focussed in the set up but it just seems an unnecessary lard arse.

[edo]

Looking on the configurator, most things you would want are standard so this does look like good value.

That said, 45k gets you a very lightly used M5...

[Bladedancer]

Dale487 said:

works if you have a family

I think you're stretching it a bit here...

[Vee12V]

Average steering, average seats and seating position, run of the mill turbocharged engine, average gearbox, how on earth is this considered a driver's car? People should really start to look past the flared wheel arches, silly color and M-badging. Probably a decent 'modern BMW' but not an M car in my book.

[MrGeoff]

This is the first of the turbocharged generation that has interested me. I'd love one, just not sure I would get rid of the CSL for it.

[Petrolhead]

I wonder how this compared to the 235i

[famfarrow]

Is there any reason why this is an 'N' code engine as opposed to the usual 'S' for M cars? Beardy I know but I do find it off-putting

Edited by famfarrow on Monday 18th April 10:52

[Vocht]

Petrolhead said:

I wonder how this compared to the 235i

It'll be better no doubt, but £10,000 better? I'm not so sure. Tick a few boxes on an M2 and you're in M4 territory which makes it hard to justify.

If I was looking for* a viable, fun 2nd family car, I'm sure an M235i (even a convertible* version) would provide 9/10 of the M2 thrill, and save you a big chunk of change at the same time.

Edited by Vocht on Monday 18th April 11:06

[famfarrow]

Vocht said:

It'll be better no doubt, but £10,000 better? I'm not so sure. Tick a few boxes on an M2 and you're in M4 territory which makes it hard to justify.

If I was looking fr a viable, fun 2nd family car, I'm sure an M235i (even a cpnvertible version) would provide 9/10 of the M2 thrill, and save you a big chunk of change at the same time.

On this line of thought , I would be very interested to see how a 'Stang stacks up when thrown into the mix