[hb]

Can't wait to film it very very soon

[kyrix1st]

Hope they stop being a little pus about 6MT and release it.

3.0 CSL has the same 550Nm of torque with 550ps, so we know it's not the transmission issue.

[Mikesbimmer]

Originally Posted by F87inJAX

8mm lower. There you go, that explains the horrendous wheel gap on the base model. It was all so they could get people to eventually trade up to the CS.

Although even the MP HAS port installed gives you a 10mm drop, so…

MPHAS max low is 25mm front / 20mm rear I believe :-)

[Mikesbimmer]

Originally Posted by kyrix1st

Hope they stop being a little pus about 6MT and release it.

3.0 CSL has the same 550Nm of torque with 550ps, so we know it's not the transmission issue.

If it’s 6spd manual I’ll upgrade. If not, nope.

[BroDoze]

Forget the 6MT. Nevah gon happen.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by BroDoze

Forget the 6MT. Nevah gon happen.

Yes, it doesn’t make sense at all, even if the 3.0 CSL engine spec was used with the manual transmission.

The 3.0 CSL engine spec was 550Nm to the power and torque peak at the 7,200RPM redline, giving 412kW/560bhp. The problem is when changing gear from 2nd to 3rd the revs drop to 67% of the redline value to give only 276kW/370bhp at 550Nm and 4,800RPM.

With the ZF8 auto with 650Nm at 4800RPM, it will be making 327kW/439bhp, then continue to about 5,700RPM where it will make maximum power of 390kW/523bhp, but will continue with close to that power level until the 7,200RPM redline. The only point the 412kW 3.0 CSL engine will be making more power will be from 6,700 to 7,200RPM, otherwise from 4,800RPM to 5,700RPM it will be making 19% less power and from 5,700 to 6,700RPM between 19% and equivalent power. This leads to about 10% less power developed on average from 4,800RPM to 7,200RPM between the two engines.

Overall the 550Nm torque limit is just too much of an impediment to make a manual G87 CS worthwhile when compared with the ZF8.

[Mikesbimmer]

Originally Posted by aerobod

Yes, it doesn’t make sense at all, even if the 3.0 CSL engine spec was used with the manual transmission.

The 3.0 CSL engine spec was 550Nm to the power and torque peak at the 7,200RPM redline, giving 412kW/560bhp. The problem is when changing gear from 2nd to 3rd the revs drop to 67% of the redline value to give only 276kW/370bhp at 550Nm and 4,800RPM.

With the ZF8 auto with 650Nm at 4800RPM, it will be making 327kW/439bhp, then continue to about 5,700RPM where it will make maximum power of 390kW/523bhp, but will continue with close to that power level until the 7,200RPM redline. The only point the 412kW 3.0 CSL engine will be making more power will be from 6,700 to 7,200RPM, otherwise from 4,800RPM to 5,700RPM it will be making 19% less power and from 5,700 to 6,700RPM between 19% and equivalent power. This leads to about 10% less power developed on average from 4,800RPM to 7,200RPM between the two engines.

Overall the 550Nm torque limit is just too much of an impediment to make a manual G87 CS worthwhile when compared with the ZF8.

Too bad it’s all about power.. I wish the CS would be some sort of homage to the 1M.. make it more about bringing a lightweight analog pure sports car to market focused on fully engaged driver pleasure.

[OneTwo3]

Originally Posted by M2PDX

Add a lithium battery (-38 lbs) and lightweight wheels (-20 or so) and that's significant weight savings!

Just hope my dealer gets 3 (since I'm #3 on their list).

Are you #3 specifically for a CS allocation or m2 in general?

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by Mikesbimmer

Too bad it’s all about power.. I wish the CS would be some sort of homage to the 1M.. make it more about bringing a lightweight analog pure sports car to market focused on fully engaged driver pleasure.

You’re not going to get a lightweight analog sports car out of any CLAR platform vehicle. That market demand seems to be pretty small these days, even Porsche doesn’t really meet that criteria anymore. Really only a specialist product is going to meet that need if any amount of power is required.

[M2PDX]

Originally Posted by OneTwo3

Are you #3 specifically for a CS allocation or m2 in general?

CS.

I already have a (fabulous) '23 G87.

[Ronin76]

How much is this car going to cost? For sure at least a $100k right?

[robopp]

Originally Posted by aerobod

You’re not going to get a lightweight analog sports car out of any CLAR platform vehicle. That market demand seems to be pretty small these days, even Porsche doesn’t really meet that criteria anymore. Really only a specialist product is going to meet that need if any amount of power is required.

Eh, my 992.1 carrera T weighs 3200lbs, which is what a 911 weighed in 1980 and the .1 is not a small car. That to me is impressive and the way most manufacturers should go vs 800hp and 4500lbs.

Porsche does all the right things except continuing to jack up the msrps, unfortunately.

[BroDoze]

1. Inexpensive
2. Lots of power
3. Lightweight

Pick two.

[mrdudley]

Originally Posted by WWM3

If I'm ordering a G87 CS, I'm checking the CCB box for a variety of reasons. I was very glad I did so with my F87 CS as they definitely contributed to a better resale value vs the equivalent non-CCB car. But I can understand why the cost vs. benefit doesn't work for a lot of people.

Of course it achieved a higher resale value, but was it $10k more? (Honestly I don’t know)

Rarely does the return on premium options justify the initial cost if ROI is your primary goal.

[WWM3]

Originally Posted by mrdudley

Of course it achieved a higher resale value, but was it $10k more? (Honestly I don’t know)

Rarely does the return on premium options justify the initial cost if ROI is your primary goal.

I think there are cars where CCBs do not add much of anything second hand. An F10 M5 might be a good example. So I’m pushing back on the “of course” in your comments. In my case, ROI was not my primary goal or any goal whatsoever. I just wanted to have them, like any other option. In the case of my F87 CS, CCBs cost me $8.5k and added at least that when I sold the car. It’s hard to know since my miles were lowish and the spec was killer (Misano, 6MT, gold wheels, CCBs). I’ll put it this way: my opinion is that if you’re buying a special/limited sports car, you’re better off speccing CCBs. The benefits during ownership are high and it makes the car more attractive when it’s time to sell.

[mrdudley]

Originally Posted by WWM3

I think there are cars where CCBs do not add much of anything second hand. An F10 M5 might be a good example. So I’m pushing back on the “of course” in your comments. In my case, ROI was not my primary goal or any goal whatsoever. I just wanted to have them, like any other option. In the case of my F87 CS, CCBs cost me $8.5k and added at least that when I sold the car. It’s hard to know since my miles were lowish and the spec was killer (Misano, 6MT, gold wheels, CCBs). I’ll put it this way: my opinion is that if you’re buying a special/limited sports car, you’re better off speccing CCBs. The benefits during ownership are high and it makes the car more attractive when it’s time to sell.

Glad it wasn’t your primary goal, and glad you enjoyed them! That’s what matters.

[Ronin76]

Originally Posted by BroDoze

1. Inexpensive
2. Lots of power
3. Lightweight

Pick two.

Damn you!!

[JABCAT]

Originally Posted by aerobod

You’re not going to get a lightweight analog sports car out of any CLAR platform vehicle. That market demand seems to be pretty small these days, even Porsche doesn’t really meet that criteria anymore. Really only a specialist product is going to meet that need if any amount of power is required.

Agreed. People complain about these same things over on Corvette forum, how the Z06 should be light-weight, track-focused, etc. The reality is there are less than 1% of buyers (my made up statistic) for a car like that. My Carbon Edition Z06 also weighs in under 3200 lbs & is pretty raw compared to my M2. It was Chevy's track-focused Z06 combining all the ZR1 components (cooling, aero, CCBs, suspension) in a light-weight body with carbon fiber panels. Chevy sold a total of 252 of them (planned for 500), and when they were released, many sat on dealer lots eventually selling at steep discounts. Now, they're one of the most sought after Corvettes & command high prices, but that doesn't benefit Chevy now 14 years later.

I imagine it's the same for any CS version of an M car. BMW & others are in the business to sell cars in large volumes. Looking at the specs, there's nothing in the CS pkg that justifies the presumed very large price bump over a standard M2 (imo). And I'm someone who always buys the highest trim level/special edition.

[Tag]

Originally Posted by kyrix1st

Hope they stop being a little pus about 6MT and release it.

3.0 CSL has the same 550Nm of torque with 550ps, so we know it's not the transmission issue.

BMW will not warranty the MT to handle the extra torque. Even though 3.0 CSL makes 553hp it only produces 406 lb-ft of toque, same as the base M2 w/MT and base M3/4. If you look at the rest of the line up, the M2 w/AT produces 443 lb-ft torque while the AT M3/4C/X produce 473 lb-ft of toque. There isn't a single car with the S58 that makes more than 406 lb-ft of torque and is paired to the MT.

Simple rule, if you see any G8x with more than 406 lb-ft of torque it will only be offered with AT.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by robopp

Eh, my 992.1 carrera T weighs 3200lbs, which is what a 911 weighed in 1980 and the .1 is not a small car. That to me is impressive and the way most manufacturers should go vs 800hp and 4500lbs.

Porsche does all the right things except continuing to jack up the msrps, unfortunately.

For a car that is only a 2+2 from a seating perspective, that isn't particularly light, especially if the rear seat is deleted to make it a 2 seater. Assuming sporting cars that have at least 250bhp per tonne, I would look at 1,300kg (2,865lb) for a 2 seater, 1,400kg (3,085lb) for a 2+2 and 1,500kg (3,305lb) for a car with 4 usable seats, as being light.

From my perspective, light isn't good enough for the best sporting feel, my Caterham R500 is in the superlight category for a 2 seater at 500bhp per tonne and 540kg (1,190lb).

[hb]

Originally Posted by Tag

BMW will not warranty the MT to handle the extra torque. Even though 3.0 CSL makes 553hp it only produces 406 lb-ft of toque, same as the base M2 w/MT and base M3/4. If you look at the rest of the line up, the M2 w/AT produces 443 lb-ft torque while the AT M3/4C/X produce 473 lb-ft of toque. There isn't a single car with the S58 that makes more than 406 lb-ft of torque and is paired to the MT.

Simple rule, if you see any G8x with more than 406 lb-ft of torque it will only be offered with AT.

There might be some surprises in the future.

[hb]

Originally Posted by BroDoze

Forget the 6MT. Nevah gon happen.

Never say never