[davidmct-M3]

Having seen one in the flesh yesterday it lots pretty good. Nice stance and quite aggressive. Better than the pictures. Nice arse.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by aerobod

The M2 and M3 are the same width and similar height the main difference is 100mm or so longer floorpan and body metal around it (besides the extra doors), the underlying structure and mechanical components are otherwise the same. In the case of the M4, it is exactly the same width and slightly lower than the M2, the longer floorpan and larger fuel tank in that extra floorpan space is the only significant difference, adding only about 20kg in weight.

Ya, the fact that people are surprised by this just show you how clueless they really are.

[r0wr]

Originally Posted by playswcars

Spoiler: it isn't.

You don't notice the weight when driving.

Drive a GR86 or Cayman and you’ll definitely notice a weight difference. G87 makes up for it with more HP but to say you don’t notice the weight when driving is BS.

[MNoob]

Originally Posted by r0wr

Drive a GR86 or Cayman and you’ll definitely notice a weight difference. G87 makes up for it with more HP but to say you don’t notice the weight when driving is BS.

[Kevin_The_Clean1]

On a side note - the commentator / driver of this video has also put on a few xtra pounds over the years. So maybe the pot is calling the kettle you know what. LOL Just something to keep in mind while watching this. Maybe he's just a little salty that everything feels a bit heavier as you get older.

[Thelof]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Probably not too heavy... but the questionable part is how its as heavy as an M3 which is a far larger car... yea same chassis blah blah... but the heavier wheels etc and 0 effort into weight reduction on a far smaller car seem like low efforts altogether.

They do it so they can sell you a slightly lighter M2 CS for 30k more.

[Stlthnmrdrd]

Modern high performance street cars especially without supporting aero need the extra weight for stability. If all our high powered cars were lightweight like 90's-2000 cars with no downforce, the car will literally fly off the road. Especially with all the idiots ripping their cars in ridiculous speed on public roads, the manufacturers are doing them a favor.

Yea, bmw could slap on a fully functional aero package, with a lighter chassis, more aggressive than the m4 gt4 and similar to the gt3 rs, but they wont. Bc their goal is to make their M line appealing to the general public rather than racecar drivers. Not everyone wants big wings, aggressive splitters, and low ride height, so there is no other option than to increase the weight while increasing horsepower for safety.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by Stlthnmrdrd

Modern high performance street cars especially without supporting aero need the extra weight for stability. If all our high powered cars were lightweight like 90's-2000 cars with no downforce, the car will literally fly off the road. Especially with all the idiots ripping their cars in ridiculous speed on public roads, the manufacturers are doing them a favor.

Yea, bmw could slap on a fully functional aero package, with a lighter chassis, more aggressive than the m4 gt4 and similar to the gt3 rs, but they wont. Bc their goal is to make their M line appealing to the general public rather than racecar drivers. Not everyone wants big wings, aggressive splitters, and low ride height, so there is no other option than to increase the weight while increasing horsepower for safety.

My 500bhp per tonne Caterham with no driver aids or aerodynamic downforce is perfectly fine for driving on the road with no risk of flying off it, assuming it is driven responsibly. Our G87 has no stability advantage over it due to it’s more than 3x weight.

Extra weight is not required for stability, heavy SUVs are typically the least stable of any passenger cars.

[Stlthnmrdrd]

Originally Posted by aerobod

My 500bhp per tonne Caterham with no driver aids or aerodynamic downforce is perfectly fine for driving on the road with no risk of flying off it, assuming it is driven responsibly. Our G87 has no stability advantage over it because it’s more than 3x weight.

Extra weight is not required for stability, heavy SUVs are typically the least stable of any passenger cars.

True, but a Caterham's drag is significantly different compared to a traditional round shape and creates more downforce than a car with a smoother hood, to windshield transition. Also with the majority of the weight being in the center and not "leaking" out the sides like a traditional car + the wheels being further out of the main frame + lower center of gravity all together make it very stable. It almost gives it a go-cart effect.

The whole setup of a g87 is completely different and weight definitely does give a stability advantage without aero. The weight isn't there just to keep it grounded but also helps with traction, which is also important for stability + gives a much rigid and stable chassis. if the car had no aero, no weight, and all power it would make the car unstable in general even if it was constructed using carbon fiber. Especially with traditional cars having "leaking" mass on the sides due to the wheels being inside the body, you need a proper power to weight ratio to keep it stable.

Non-performance heavy SUV's are less stable mainly due to a higher center of gravity and all the mass being waaay above the wheels. Plus the soft suspension just increases the instability. Thats why performance SUvs like the cayenne linup, urus, XM lineups, etc all have a stiffer sus setup + slightly lower center of gravity compared to standard suv's.

If a SUV had high hp + super light weight + high center of gravity, that thing would tip over to the side hitting 45mph in a corner.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by Stlthnmrdrd

True, but a Caterham's drag is significantly different compared to a traditional round shape and creates more downforce than a car with a smoother hood, to windshield transition. Also with the majority of the weight being in the center and not "leaking" out the sides like a traditional car + the wheels being further out of the main frame + lower center of gravity all together make it very stable. It almost gives it a go-cart effect.

The whole setup of a g87 is completely different and weight definitely does give a stability advantage without aero. The weight isn't there just to keep it grounded but also helps with traction, which is also important for stability + gives a much rigid and stable chassis. if the car had no aero, no weight, and all power it would make the car unstable in general even if it was constructed using carbon fiber. Especially with traditional cars having "leaking" mass on the sides due to the wheels being inside the body, you need a proper power to weight ratio to keep it stable.

Non-performance heavy SUV's are less stable mainly due to a higher center of gravity and all the mass being waaay above the wheels. Plus the soft suspension just increases the instability. Thats why performance SUvs like the cayenne linup, urus, XM lineups, etc all have a stiffer sus setup + slightly lower center of gravity compared to standard suv's.

If a SUV had high hp + super light weight + high center of gravity, that thing would tip over to the side hitting 45mph in a corner.

A Caterham has no downforce, only slight lift on the front axle at speed. The unsprung mass to sprung mass is generally higher, too, with more relative weight at the wheels than normal road cars (unsprung mass at the periphery is 50% of that of a G87, whereas sprung mass is about 30%).

Friction at the tyres is proportional to weight, but so is inertia, so any additional tractive force is cancelled out by higher accelerative forces due to the extra weight, for a given tyre size and compound. The weight of the G87 gives it no stability advantage, it is a function of the platform and is held in check by appropriate brake and suspension, sizing, design and tuning. The only advantage weight has on stability is to reduce aquaplaning with standing water when a too-wide tyre is used for the vehicle weight.

Fir high power to weight ratio cars, there is no inherent reason for lack of stability of the car itself that any additional weight will improve (assuming suspension tuning and tyres are appropriate for the car weight), just the issue of inexperienced drivers who don’t know how to drive them properly.

[Neusser]

The car is heavy, no question. That said, the review was positive.

I am a big fan of the looks, personally.

As far as the drive goes, all seems well and the reality is that the M2 like all BMWs is a road car. It can handle a few laps on a track, but it is not some Übersportwagen.

Enjoy it for what it is.

[ipeefreely]

Chris Harris said that the weight won't matter if you can't feel it. But I'm going to slightly disagree with that statement...

First off, the weight will probably matter, especially when it comes to consumables. Tires, brakes, etc... will wear at a much higher rate compared to something that is 1000 lbs lighter. This is obvious.

Second, the handling and driving experience will not be the same as that of a lighter car. I'm not saying that's a bad thing though. There's obviously a lot of engineering behind the car and I trust that BMW hasn't just released something that would diverge so far from their usual ethos. Like... would you guys be happy if the M2 drove like a Miata? That's a completely different driving experience. Also I'm not sure about you guys, but if my BMW drove like a Miata, I probably wouldn't like it (or I would just buy a Miata).

In the end, I find that the driving experience a long with the looks are purely subjective. Everybody is different and therefore not only have different uses for the car but have different preferences. We can debate all day on here about whether the car is ugly or not, whether it understeers a bit too much, or if the interior is tall enough... but at the end of the day, it's once again... a personal preference. Buy and drive what works for you.

[kyrix1st]

If you drive E92 M3 and G87 M2 back to back like I do sometimes, you will definitely notice the heavier weight of the M2. It corners well for its weight, but I suspect in tight transitions this will become very apparent on stock suspension (quite apparent with G82 on Tsukuba circuit).

[Neusser]

If the new M2 is too heavy to be fun, then what is the M3, M5, etc.


Dat headline.

Christ on a crutch.

[BackOnBlack]

Heavy, meavy, it apprently goes like stink in the right hands:
https://g87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=2087771

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by BackOnBlack

Heavy, meavy, it apprently goes like stink in the right hands:
https://g87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=2087771

It's a great car. The pissing and moaning is bizarre. Looks great, too.