[M2M3M3]

Originally Posted by Squidget

I disagree totally with this. The 911 is in a totally different market, and it's reflected in the price. Again, in the real world, I'm not sure how you are really holding a $64K car to 911 standards. There's a limit to how exotic you can get based on price points.

Likewise, everyone ALREADY bitches about the headroom in the back, it's already a thing many reviews talked about, so I think it's silly to pretend you can just cut more headroom and it won't be a problem.

It's not a design error. It's a rational set of compromises. It's not the first 2 series with a small tank, and since BMW keeps selling a ton of them, I just don't think you can call it an error.

Ok... go find another car in the same price range, of the same size with a smaller fuel tank.

Instead of a 911, let's pick a camaro. Same size, a little cheaper. They fit a 19gal tank in those.

Everyone? I doubt even 50%of the m2 owners put adults in the back seat. And if "everyone" is already complaining, then another 1/2in less won't matter. But if they really cared about headroom, they can delete the sunroof. Heck, bmw has already started down that road with the non- opening glass roofs on the x3.

Design error.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by M2M3M3

Ok... go find another car in the same price range, of the same size with a smaller fuel tank.

Instead of a 911, let's pick a camaro. Same size, a little cheaper. They fit a 19gal tank in those.

You mean the car that didn't sell well enough to survive? Not a great example, I don't think. (rip SS 1LE btw, a great car)

I already cited the other 2 series, the cars that are selling so well they opened another plant to make more of them.

And while I don't think it's a direct comparison, the Supra is also 52 liters, FWIW.

The closest comparison I'd generally cite to the M2 would be something like the Mustang because it's a coupe. And, sure, fair, it has about 2 more gallons of tank, but it's also bigger and heavier. The Dark Horse version gets something like 20 more miles on a full tank. Not exactly an early shattering difference, and the G87 remains a better car overall, IMO.

The other car I often compare G87 to would be the CTS-4V BW, but that's a sedan, more expensive, and 7 inches longer.

It's also illogical to say "the rear seats are already bad, so it can't hurt to make them worse." That's not how selling cars works.

BMW simply valued certain attributes differently than you did, but I don't think that makes it an error. Just a compromise, to best sell cars.

[Squidget]

Also, to be clear, while I can understand why BMW hasn't offered the base G87 with an extra tank option (the take rate will be low), I would love to see it.

I do hope there will be a tank option on the upcoming CS. (Or a CSL, if they ever make one.) As you get up into more track-focused trims, it becomes harder to justify the lack of an extra tank.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by Artemis

The E30 M3 (195 to 238ps) measures 4345 mm and weighs about 1200 kg. The European version featured a 70 liter fuel capacity tank: 55 liter stock + 15 liter auxiliary fuel tank (factory-fitted). The US version didn't get the 15 liter auxiliary fuel tank.

The G87 M2 (460 to 480ps, twice the power output of the E30 M3) measures 4580 mm (same as the E90 M3, 23.5 cm or over 9" more than the E30 M3), weighs at least half a ton kg heavier than the E30 M3 and features a 52 liter fuel tank (18 liter less than the more compact European E30 M3) without option to get a factory-fitted bigger fuel tank.

Bigger folks, more muscles and thirstier but got designed smaller stomachs/bladders.

No matter the evolution of car regulations over time, guess why BMW M walked the extra mile in the 80s to conceive a factory-fit auxiliary fuel tank for its E30 M3. That's how BMW M engineered its cars back in the day: more practicality, less fluff.

The G87 has virtually the same tested fuel economy with double the power. Safety regulations and extra power are as much as responsible as anything for the extra weight and size. In all measured performance aspects (acceleration, braking, cornering), the E30 M3 has a hard time keeping up with a 230i. Steering feel is about the only driver aspect where the E30 is ahead.

The CLAR platform is compressed to its lower limit for a 4-seat car, leading to the same weight and width as the G8x cars, but no space to add an auxiliary fuel tank in a safe place (18 litres / 5 US gallons would add about 60mm to the rear seat height, making it unusable).

The G87 is on target to be the most produced M-model of all time, so obviously BMW are doing something right. Market demand and consumer choice seem to favour the product.

If you want something light overall and long range from a fuel tank perspective, look elsewhere.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by Squidget

Also, to be clear, while I can understand why BMW hasn't offered the base G87 with an extra tank option (the take rate will be low), I would love to see it.

I do hope there will be a tank option on the upcoming CS. (Or a CSL, if they ever make one.) As you get up into more track-focused trims, it becomes harder to justify the lack of an extra tank.

I think in combination with a roll cage and rear seat deletion, that would be a possibility. Probably more likely from an aftermarket seller than BMW, though.

[YPS]

Originally Posted by aerobod

I think in combination with a roll cage and rear seat deletion, that would be a possibility. Probably more likely from an aftermarket seller than BMW, though.

I'd think a larger tank will become more necessary than this time,
after bmw add xdrive and much hp(520+),
when the future models show up, that we all knows.
If you dont like to drive a 300km ranges car, right?

[spurcap]

Originally Posted by M2M3M3

and yet a new 911 is smaller, meets all those same safety and market forces and manages to fit a 16.5 gal fuel tank in the car.

Well the obvious difference is needing space for passengers! If the M2 deleted the rear seats I'm sure there would be enough room for those in this thread to store 100 gallons of fuel.

[JABCAT]

I never understand the complaining about the tank size. Sure, larger tank you fill up slightly less often but each fill up costs more. It all basically evens out.

[spurcap]

Originally Posted by Squidget

BMW simply valued certain attributes differently than you did, but I don't think that makes it an error. Just a compromise, to best sell cars.

People buy a one ton pickup truck and drive it around town 52 weeks a year, struggling to park in many locations, burning a ton of fuel for daily driver poor performance because they tow a giant RV 2 weeks a year.

I view the rear seats similarly. Yeah I will take another car if I am planning a trip with more than 2 adults. But if you are at a friend's house and haphazardly decide that 4 of you want to go grab a bite to eat 10 mins away, having extra seats is a hugh nice to have... even if the passenger experience is bad. Oh and nice to be able to go out for a Saturday drive with wife and kid and not be forced to take the suburba-tank.

As much as almost everyone would like to stop for fuel less... if you sold the M2 at the same price with a set of almost never used rear seats vs a 30 gallon fuel tank 2 seater, I expect 90% of buyers would take the rear seats even if they had no obvious use for them.

The other potential trade off is trunk space. And I expect the results for that option would be more evenly balanced. That said - unless the auxiliary tank is bolt on, it hugely complicates the manfucruing process. You would need two sets of interior panels in the trunk... one for the big trunk, one for the small trunk. If you offer an auxiliary tank option outside that just becomes a void if not optioned that's just a poor use of space.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by YPS

I'd think a larger tank will become more necessary than this time,
after bmw add xdrive and much hp(520+),
when the future models show up, that we all knows.
If you dont like to drive a 300km ranges car, right?

G87 can easily do 600km on 52 litres when cruising at 120km/h. I normally refuel at 500km on a particular mountain journey across the Rockies I drive quite often, including various spirited overtaking manoeuvres along the route.

[BradMX5]

My Miata has a 10 gallon tank and I get anywhere from 30 to 40mpg depending how I'm driving. I fill it constantly and figure the M2 will be close maybe a little better with range so pretty even trade off for me especially with coming close to 3 times the power and 1500 pounds heavier.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by aerobod

I think in combination with a roll cage and rear seat deletion, that would be a possibility. Probably more likely from an aftermarket seller than BMW, though.

True. It's super rare to see a seat delete as an OEM option.

(Mad props to Toyota for the GR-C Morizo, a true OEM rear-seat-delete option! Wish that happened more often.)

Also, it's implied that BMW doesn't want the G87 to be able to do everything, hence why they handicap it here and there. I think BMW really wants to upsell you into a M3/M4 if you are super track-centric, OR if you want more luxury. Which is why the G87 has no exotic options.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by Squidget

True. It's super rare to see a seat delete as an OEM option.

(Mad props to Toyota for the GR-C Morizo, a true OEM rear-seat-delete option! Wish that happened more often.)

Also, it's implied that BMW doesn't want the G87 to be able to do everything, hence why they handicap it here and there. I think BMW really wants to upsell you into a M3/M4 if you are super track-centric, OR if you want more luxury. Which is why the G87 has no exotic options.

Yes if you want luxury you have to go M4.
The M2 is equivalent to a basement bargain M4 stripper.
If you want better colors? Buy an M4.
If you want full leather? Buy an M4.
If you want ADAS? Buy an M4
.......

[YPS]

Originally Posted by aerobod

G87 can easily do 600km on 52 litres when cruising at 120km/h. I normally refuel at 500km on a particular mountain journey across the Rockies I drive quite often, including various spirited overtaking manoeuvres along the route.

I bought a sports car for sporty driving,
Not for cruising driving.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by YPS

I bought a sports car for sporty driving,
Not for cruising driving.

With my sporty driving I can get 100km to a tank and 500km to a set of tyres if I want. Not too worried about fuel tank size. When I do track days I take more than double the fuel in fuel cans to be able to complete a full day. You can fit five 20 litre cans in the boot of the M2 when you need to, but use the space for luggage at other times.

If you don’t want to stop and drive a bit further without refuelling, the M4 is the GT car.

[M2M3M3]

Originally Posted by techwhiz1

The M2 is equivalent to a basement bargain M4 stripper.

.......

I wish it was.
delete the interior disco lighting and the rest of the electronic geehaws. think of how much lighter they would be without all the miles of extraneous wiring.

and to follow your logic,
make the back seat smaller to fit a bigger gas tank. if you want a bigger back seat, buy an M4.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by M2M3M3

I wish it was.
delete the interior disco lighting and the rest of the electronic geehaws. think of how much lighter they would be without all the miles of extraneous wiring.

and to follow your logic,
make the back seat smaller to fit a bigger gas tank. if you want a bigger back seat, buy an M4.

The back seat is already barely usable.
Any less back seat and they would have to call it a 2 seater.