Here it is the new BMW M2

Dis86 · 15 Oct 2015 at 17:19

SS-89 said:
Your earlier point was that the M brand is merging because of a small gap in bhp performance between the M2 and M235i right? As shown that simply isn't the case as the gap between the M2 and m235i is in fact larger than the previous generation 1M vs 135i and we all know the 1M was far superior and widely lauded car as being one of the best M cars of its generation.

Like I said bhp and paper stats only tell one side of the story, jump in an M car and it's a far different proposition, you keep quoting 0-60 times as the only difference between the cars but that's simply missing the point of an M car.

No, i'm saying that difference now between an M and none M is probably closer than it's ever been. The power is a huge factor of this.

You're comparing the two most recent additions to the M range to one another. I'm talking about the most recent additions compared to the range as a whole.

Your argument now is completely different to your point earlier. Why if you're just talking about the gap between the 1M and M2 did you post figures for several generations of M3(4)?

SS-89 · 15 Oct 2015 at 17:25

Yet the gap in power in the rest of the range has remained largely the same if not widened (as illustrated from the changes from e46 up to f80/82) and I can tell you first hand that the M4 and M5 are wildly different beasts to their smaller engined brothers. What gives you the impression the M brand is converging with the top petrol model if it isn't the small gap between the M2/M235 (which is why I pointed out that the M2 actually has a bigger power difference to the top petrol than its predecessor)?

Dis86 said:
Your argument now is completely different to your point earlier. Why if you're just talking about the gap between the 1M and M2 did you post figures for several generations of M3(4)?

To illustrate that the power gap between the top petrol to the M model from generation to generation for each model has increased.

Dis86 · 15 Oct 2015 at 17:29

SS-89 said:
Yet the gap in power in the rest of the range has remained largely the same if not widened (as illustrated from the changes from e46 up to f80/82) and I can tell you first hand that the M4 and M5 are wildly different beasts to their smaller engined brothers.

Yes...You're agreeing with what I said now. I'll say one more time, the recent additions to the range narrow the gap between m and none m cars. Bmw are going in a direction that is different to their previous one.

SS-89 · 15 Oct 2015 at 17:40

Dis86 said:
Yes...You're agreeing with what I said now. I'll say one more time, the recent additions to the range narrow the gap between m and none m cars. Bmw are going in a direction that is different to their previous one.

But they're not recent really this started over 4 years ago when the 1M was first announced. Anyway I understand what you're saying but the reality is they can't create a massive performance gap otherwise they would be treading on the toes of the M3/4 and I don't think the rest of the line is actually any different from years gone past. The M2/1M are supposed to be the easiest and most affordable way into M ownership.

I think the 1M is a cracking car and still a true M car and I expect the M2 to continue this.

AndrewNR · 15 Oct 2015 at 18:07

Rossi~ said:
One thing's for sure, i'd have a V8 'stang over this any day.

Same here.

Although (money no object) M4 > 'stang > M2

Didn't realise the M4 was from £57k. Mother of God.

ChrisD. · 16 Oct 2015 at 07:46

Are these a limited run like the 1M?

Cosimo · 16 Oct 2015 at 07:46

It does make some noise:

OhEsEcks · 16 Oct 2015 at 07:49

Cosimo said:
It does make some noise:

thewanted · 16 Oct 2015 at 07:51

S2KIP said:
Are these a limited run like the 1M?

Nope.

[TW]Fox · 16 Oct 2015 at 07:59

Dis86 said:
I'm not saying it's not fast enough,

Yes, you are.

I'm saying it's not fast enough in relation to the range topping none M car.

Which unless you are advocating that the answer is to make the M235i more rubbish, is the same thing as saying it isnt fast enough.

Read my posts. Looking at 0-60 time of 4.5 for the M235i Vs 4.3 for the M2. It's not exactly a huge difference is it?

So you'd want them to do what?

pioneer2000 · 16 Oct 2015 at 08:03

4.5 isn't BMW's own figure for the M235i though is it? It's officially slower than that.

SS-89 · 16 Oct 2015 at 08:15

pioneer2000 said:
4.5 isn't BMW's own figure for the M235i though is it? It's officially slower than that.

Yep on Bmw website listed as 5.0 in manual and 4.8 for auto.

Yaayuh! · 16 Oct 2015 at 09:11

Unless you're going to do frequent trips to Santapod, who gives a ****?

It accelerates quickly, end of.

Born_2_Kill_83 · 16 Oct 2015 at 09:44

Saw on twitter the M2 pulls a shade under 8 mins round the Ring, something wrong with that somewhere?

SS-89 · 16 Oct 2015 at 09:49

Born_2_Kill_83 said:
Saw on twitter the M2 pulls a shade under 8 mins round the Ring, something wrong with that somewhere?

I'm genuinely curious as to why people focus on ring times? I could understand if there was consistency between manufacturer methodology but there isn't (some running semi-slicks, some stripped out and not the road version etc.)

BMW never officially quote ring times as far as I'm aware.

Born_2_Kill_83 · 16 Oct 2015 at 09:55

It's just a benchmark, like a 0-60 time, as far as I'm aware the stripped out semi slick wearing track cars don't get officially listed on the Rings website, perhaps a good example of how a car handles? Had it been mid 7's would you be more interested?

Edit:

Saying that thought the latest M5 pulls 7:55 so I suppose 7:58 is a good time for it's baby brother.

SS-89 · 16 Oct 2015 at 10:05

Born_2_Kill_83 said:
It's just a benchmark, like a 0-60 time, as far as I'm aware the stripped out semi slick wearing track cars don't get officially listed on the Rings website, perhaps a good example of how a car handles? Had it been low 7's would you be more interested?

But then factor in it's not the same driver, not the same day, track temps or conditions. Far too many variables to be able to make apples to apples comparisons?

I'm happy with the M4, its Jekyll and Hyde nature is brilliant and even in MDM mode it will happily show you who is really boss lol, extremely tail happy due to peak torque between 1850-5500rpm. I'm fast approaching 1200 mile run in so I can fully stretch its legs.

MORE SPEED · 16 Oct 2015 at 11:11

SS-89 said:
BMW never officially quote ring times as far as I'm aware.

In the launch video they mention a sub 8 minute ring time, haven't seen it before though

SS-89 · 16 Oct 2015 at 11:15

MORE SPEED said:
In the launch video they mention a sub 8 minute ring time, haven't seen it before though

Suitably vague

SDK^ · 16 Oct 2015 at 11:20

In my opinion if a manufacturer publishes their ring time then it should be done in fully optimised conditions, otherwise what is the point of telling us in can achieve 'x' time if the conditions were wet or the driver was my mum.

Seat recently pushed the boundaries when they did a 7m 58 sec with a production Leon Estate Cupra with some kit removed which is an £8k optional extra.

It's useful to understand what time a car do but you need the full story behind the time.