[Artemis]

Originally Posted by TiBi

Have You been thining about adding second "rally" type tank in the battery bay?

That's asking for trouble with the insurance + won't pass technical control for use on public roads.

BMW M should do like Porsche: offer a ± 90 liter tank as option. That's homologated.

[Ronin76]

Originally Posted by Artemis

That's asking for trouble with the insurance + won't pass technical control for use on public roads.

BMW M should do like Porsche: offer a ± 90 liter tank as option. That's homologated.

That would have the highest take rate of any option lol. I would definitely take it.

[YPS]

Originally Posted by Artemis

That's asking for trouble with the insurance + won't pass technical control for use on public roads.

BMW M should do like Porsche: offer a ± 90 liter tank as option. That's homologated.

BMW does offer a 84l or 120l fuel tank for m2cs racing,
In f87gen,
I think they will offer to g87 racing either,
The only question is will it fit with commercial version.
https://parts.bmwofstratham.com/p/Bm...ZAMGwz_v7nx-j6

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by YPS

BMW does offer a 84l or 120l fuel tank for m2cs racing,
In f87gen,
I think they will offer to g87 racing either,
The only question is will it fit with commercial version.
https://parts.bmwofstratham.com/p/Bm...ZAMGwz_v7nx-j6

March 2021:

Originally Posted by Artemis

Fuel capacity:

• OG M2 - M2C - M2 CS: ± 52 litres
• M2 CS Racing: ± 84 litres (fueling possible from both sides of the car)

January 2021:

Originally Posted by Artemis

the fuel tank capacity of the M2/M2C/M2 CS is equal: ± 52 litres (exception: the M2 CS Racing: ± 84 litres and fueling possible from both sides of the car). Which is too small, given the fuel consumption when you drive it in a 'spirited way'. An E46 M3 has a bigger, more appropriate, fuel tank capacity.
(...)
Back in 2017 I noticed that BMW M had reduced the M5 fuel tank capacity: moving from ± 80 liter (83 liter according to some) for the BMW F10 M5 (2012) to ± 68 liter for the upcoming BMW F90 M5 (2018).
So I posted in the F90 M5 section a thread with the provocative title "F90 M5: reduced fuel capacity/range for the sake of presenting a lower weight figure?" (see here).
Well, that didn't bode well: comment #3 already torpedoed it as "conspiracy theory". I guess they didn't like my joke at the end of my post.

[techwhiz1]

So if it's that big a deal, there are fuel cells that can be trunk mounted with a bulk pump to transfer to the other tank.

This stuff isn't rocket science.

I don't have an M2 yet, but I'm sure the limitation is because the tank is under the rear seats like it's been in every 3 series since I owned an E30.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by Ronin76

That would have the highest take rate of any option lol. I would definitely take it.

Definitely.

As commented in the first post: hard to believe, but all M2 used on public roads (F87 gen + G87 gen) got the same fuel tank capacity as a G42 218i: ± 52 litres.

When I'm around in the mountains with my Porsche GT buddies, I'm always the one who need to keep an eye on my fuel level. All of them got the optional bigger fuel tanks offered by Porsche.

Probably a matter of R&D costs for BMW M: any change involving safety to a homologated car, adds R&D costs. Porsche GT boss Andreas Preuninger already pointed out in interviews how bloody expensive a small change can be (homologation requirements).

Trivia: the E82 1M was initially supposed to get halogen headlights as standard equipment, rather than the more expensive Xenon headlights. In the end it got the Xenon headlights as standard feature - but that hadn't been the plan of BMW M:

Originally Posted by Artemis

A new car design is usually signed off long time in advance. Registering a new car is a time-consuming process of steps, nationally and internationally. And if someone on the face of the earth who gets access to confidential documents abuses his/her professional duties and leaks confidential information, then pictures of reverse-engineered stuff (often of questionable quality and disregarding required safety standards) based off leaked info can surface someday. Quite frustrating for car manufacturers that way too often their confidential info gets into the hands of the counterfeit and replica industry even before official release of a new car.

Only minor design tweaks are still possible. Trivia fun fact about the E82 1M: the 1M was initially supposed to get halogen headlights as standard equipment, rather than the more expensive Xenon headlights. Reason: BMW M intended to launch the 1M onto the German market in 2011 for less than €50K (entry level BMW M car). However, the 1M featuring halogen headlights is told to have failed the TüV certification test. Reason for the failure was fully 1M design related: parking lights of the halogen headlights were physically positioned too much inwards because of the 1M 'wide fenders' design (wider than the stock E82 1-Series fenders). And so BMW quickly switched to plan B for homologation purposes: exit halogen headlights / enter Xenon headlights as standard equipment on every 1M worldwide (the parking lights are positioned more external because of the 'angel eyes' design). But this change pushed the base price of the 1M right over the psychological €50K barrier on the German market.

[beren]

I agree the tank is small - can't understand why 2-3 extra gallons was so impossible to engineer into the car. That being said, I did know the tank was going to be small before I bought the car.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by beren

I agree the tank is small - can't understand why 2-3 extra gallons was so impossible to engineer into the car. That being said, I did know the tank was going to be small before I bought the car.

Why is it hard to understand, tho?

Buy 4 gallons of milk (representing 3 gallons of fuel and the tank itself), place them in your M2 wherever you wish. I think the loss of space is pretty obvious, myself. 4 gallons is actually a LOT of space.

The rear seats are already cramped, so that's a non-starter, and losing 4 gallons out of the trunk would hurt practicality too much for a care that's supposed to be a daily driver.

[M2M3M3]

and yet somehow BMW managed to get a 14gal tank AND A SPARE TIRE into a relatively tiny E30 3series that weighed 1300lbs less......

maybe if they deleted some of the disco lighting and computers they could have fit more useful items in the car...

heck, my E36 M3 has a 16gal tank, a full sized spare, a back seat that is useable, weighs 800lbs less and is smaller than an M2....

[Kevin_The_Clean1]

Originally Posted by DanG

Definitely disappointing.

Yes indeed. The GX cars are not light. But a smaller fuel tank makes no sense to me either.

[spurcap]

On my motorcycle, I have a 2nd fuel tank mounted that doesn't require a fuel pump. Unplug vent line from fuel tank and plug into auxiliary tank. Reconnect main tank vent line to auxiliary tank. Engine draws fuel from main tank, pulls vacuum and ends up sucking fuel from auxiliary.

Because it utilizes the factory venting it wouldn't add any fumes into the cabin. I'm sure it would be a relatively easy thing to build in a trunk providing you could find a suitable place to mount and the tank vent line wasn't too hard to access.

Bonus points for the weird looks when you pop your trunk and bring the fuel nozzle in there.

Unfortunately regulation and insurance means such a product is almost surely never going to be commercial built. On a bike it benefits from being rack mounted and not stored in an enclosed passenger compartment.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by spurcap

On my motorcycle, I have a 2nd fuel tank mounted that doesn't require a fuel pump. Unplug vent line from fuel tank and plug into auxiliary tank. Reconnect main tank vent line to auxiliary tank. Engine draws fuel from main tank, pulls vacuum and ends up sucking fuel from auxiliary.

Because it utilizes the factory venting it wouldn't add any fumes into the cabin. I'm sure it would be a relatively easy thing to build in a trunk providing you could find a suitable place to mount and the tank vent line wasn't too hard to access.

Bonus points for the weird looks when you pop your trunk and bring the fuel nozzle in there.

Unfortunately regulation and insurance means such a product is almost surely never going to be commercial built. On a bike it benefits from being rack mounted and not stored in an enclosed passenger compartment.

As I posted earlier on the thread, you can use a fuel cell used for racing. Definitely ability to sustain impact and you mount it forward in the trunk. But the real point is that most complaining about the small tank don't want to give up space.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by techwhiz1

As I posted earlier on the thread, you can use a fuel cell used for racing. Definitely ability to sustain impact and you mount it forward in the trunk. But the real point is that most complaining about the small tank don't want to give up space.

It's a flawed reasoning to blame customers for criticizing a questionable design choice by BMW or BMW M. Porsche GT offers bigger fuel tanks since many years as option when ordering a car.

BMW equipped the E46 M3 with a ± 63 liter fuel tank. It's not up to customers to tool with fuel tank add-ons, voiding warranties and homologation. If involved in an accident and experts establish that the DIY added fuel tank contributed to the cause or scope of damage, you're into hot water. We're not talking here about adding a cup holder.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by Artemis

It's a flawed reasoning to blame customers for criticizing a questionable design choice by BMW or BMW M. Porsche GT offers bigger fuel tanks since many years as option when ordering a car.

BMW equipped the E46 M3 with a ± 63 liter fuel tank. It's not up to customers to tool with fuel tank add-ons, voiding warranties and homologation. If involved in an accident and experts establish that the DIY added fuel tank contributed to the cause or scope of damage, you're into hot water. We're not talking here about adding a cup holder.

I think you missed the point.
The design decision is based on file tank location and available space.

The car is 7 or so inches shorter than an M3/4 so less available space. I'm not sure I call it a questionable design choice or more of the limitations of packaging. Almost all modern BMWs put the tank forward the rear axle under the seats. In a short car that limits what you can do. That coupled with the fact to bake big horsepower you consume more fuel.

But how many people would have been willing to give trunk space for fuel capacity?
Because where are you going to put those extra gallons?

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Wished that the G87 M2 would have featured the approx. 63 liter (approx. 16.64 US gal / 13.86 UK gal) fuel tank capacity of the E46 M3.
Developing a new generation model of the M2 offered BMW the chance to fit a bigger fuel tank inside this all-new high performance car (eventually the G80 M3 / G82 M4 fuel tank).
Unfortunately, BMW failed to address this: disappointed to find out that it's approx. 52 liter again (approx. 13.74 US gal / 11.44 UK gal).

Originally Posted by techwhiz1

The car is 7 or so inches shorter than an M3/4 so less available space.

Do the math. An inch is 2.54 cm:

• E46 M3 length: 4492mm.
• F87 M2 length: 4468mm (less than an inch difference)
• F87 M2 Competition length: 4461mm (less than an inch difference)
• G87 M2 length: 4580mm (the car measures almost 3.5 inch longer)

Evolution of BMW M cars: dimensions (blueprints):
https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1811900

When ordering my 2024 BMW X1 (U11), BMW offered the option to get a bigger fuel tank (± 9 liter extra). I ticked that box. Standard feature for the Belgian market.

[Squidget]

Trying to rationalize by comparing a 2024 car to an E46 is crazy, right? Safety regulations, market forces (sound deadening, etc.), you know, all that stuff? That stuff we talk about constantly? Cars are bigger today, but that space isn't available for gas, it's used for other things.

As far as I can tell, there's no "wasted space" in the G87, not 3-4 cubic gallons worth anyway. I just don't understand what people expect here, some kind of magic?

[M2M3M3]

Originally Posted by Squidget

Trying to rationalize by comparing a 2024 car to an E46 is crazy, right? Safety regulations, market forces (sound deadening, etc.), you know, all that stuff? That stuff we talk about constantly? Cars are bigger today, but that space isn't available for gas, it's used for other things.

As far as I can tell, there's no "wasted space" in the G87, not 3-4 cubic gallons worth anyway. I just don't understand what people expect here, some kind of magic?

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.

as good a car as the M2 is, making a big, two ton car with a 13gal fuel tank was a design error. eg..they could have raised the back seat bottom a half inch for a couple of gal more fuel under it. nobody would have noticed the loss of headroom in the back.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by Squidget

I just don't understand what people expect here, some kind of magic?

More vision when designing a new "Freude am Fahren" car, improved R&D and common sense when building high-performance cars.

No rocket science required for BMW M to know that their M cars sporting an ICE, consume by design more fuel than the BMW base car it's based on + consume more fuel when used for its purpose (BMW M cars ain't promoted as groceries haulers - high performance is a predominant aspect to buy an M car). Feel free to ask all those who drive an M2 on the Autobahn, in canyons twisties, on mountain roads and on race tracks: yes, "range" also matters for ICE cars. And the usual "it is what it is, we didn't design the base car": the Porsche GT division also reworks Porsche base cars they didn't design. Apparently they got better vision (or "magic" as you coined it): they find the space for fitting as standard feature a fuel tank that has more fuel capacity than the 52 liter fuel tank of a BMW M2 + offer an even bigger fuel tank as option.

[aerobod]

BMW did engineer a car with larger fuel tank, added options such as 360 degree camera, same width, virtually the same height and weight with all the power and very similar dynamic properties - the M4.

The two German cars most directly competing with the M2 are the CLA45 and RS3, with similar sized tanks at 51 and 55 litres respectively.

[NewToM]

Originally Posted by M2M3M3

and yet somehow BMW managed to get a 14gal tank AND A SPARE TIRE into a relatively tiny E30 3series that weighed 1300lbs less......

maybe if they deleted some of the disco lighting and computers they could have fit more useful items in the car...

heck, my E36 M3 has a 16gal tank, a full sized spare, a back seat that is useable, weighs 800lbs less and is smaller than an M2....

Excuse me…. Please give me more disco lighting!

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by aerobod

BMW did engineer a car with larger fuel tank, added options such as 360 degree camera, same width, virtually the same height and weight with all the power and very similar dynamic properties - the M4.

The two German cars most directly competing with the M2 are the CLA45 and RS3, with similar sized tanks at 51 and 55 litres respectively.

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.



E30 M3:


E90 M3:


G87 M2:

[Squidget]

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.

as good a car as the M2 is, making a big, two ton car with a 13gal fuel tank was a design error. eg..they could have raised the back seat bottom a half inch for a couple of gal more fuel under it. nobody would have noticed the loss of headroom in the back.

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.