[Squidget]

Disclosure: the CT4-V BW was the only car I seriously cross-shopped against the M2. I test drove it and everything. It didn't quite win, but I think it's the only real apples-to-apples competitor to the M2. And I think the exterior looks nicer. Bought the M anyway, I just like BMW's approach to handling more than Caddy's.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by donm527

Design towards a more track focused car with a little less refinement and luxury different from M4 buyer that want that level of refinement and luxury. If an M4 buyer wants more performance then they have CS model and above.

Just my thought of what an M2 should be like.

I get what you are saying. But BMW will never let you have that much car for $62K. The base M2 isn't for true track junkies. Those people are buying Caymans (or higher), Emiras, CSes, etc. The base M2 is the mainstream car.

Maybe someday we'll get an xdrive M2 CSL for the track crowd. If we are making wishes, let's give it a DCT, too.

[Humdizzle]

Originally Posted by Squidget

CT4-V BW is legit. But the RS3? Eww. Not in my house, not with that heavy nose.

Edit: ALSO, not coupes, right? 4 doors.

True. But the ct4 is only 50 pounds heavier and 1" longer wheelbase. The tremec 6 speed is better than BMWs and does not have its power cut like they do for the m2.

2 door vs 4 door doesn't matter to me that much. I picked the f80 over the f82 because I thought it looked better even tho i had no use for the back seats. And the cars were identical performance, weight, etc.

[adc]

Originally Posted by Squidget

I get what you are saying. But BMW will never let you have that much car for $62K. The base M2 isn't for true track junkies. Those people are buying Caymans (or higher), Emiras, CSes, etc. The base M2 is the mainstream car.

Maybe someday we'll get an xdrive M2 CSL for the track crowd. If we are making wishes, let's give it a DCT, too.

You are wrong.

The M2 is very much for the track junkies, most of whom aren’t very rich. Those people can only buy used Caymans, or Camaros, or Vettes, and yes, M2’s.

And who the hell needs xDrive on track? It is worthless as a driver development tool.

I strongly suggest you attend a track day or 10, then come and tell us all about how the magic handling erases any concerns about expensive consumables or the ability to run at peak performance envelope for 30 minutes.

[aaaaah]

Originally Posted by Squidget

Woah there, you are the one who started tossing hypotheticals, I'm just trying to understand the rationale and how far you want to go. Because it's not at all clear.

The rationale is quite clear. By saving money on the engine, they could dedicate that to reducing weight in the platform, thereby improving it in every metric you list below.

Originally Posted by Squidget

I'd argue that the superior performance of the G87 (as a whole platform), provides evidence that it does. That's my whole point. Corners better, better planted, adaptive suspension, superior diff, equal if not better acceleration. That's the observable evidence. I don't see any evidence that replacing the S58 motor will result in a better product. I am, in fact, pretty skeptical it does, else BMW would probably have retained the F87 setup.

Weight savings almost always bring dynamic improvements and could easily result in a theoretical, B58 powered M2 having a solidly improved power to weight ratio. Turn in will be improved, tyre life and brake life will also be improved. The less weight over the front end, the better the steering feel because you require less assistance to keep the same steering weight. A lighter car can be made more comfortable because the spring rates and damper valving can be relaxed due to reduced mass transfer.

However, it still needs to feel special which is why the current AMG C63 has been reviewing poorly in emotive metrics because the drivetrain is uninspiring.

Originally Posted by Squidget

So I'll argue there is both concrete and circumstantial evidence that the additional weight was, in fact, a required part of making a "better" car. Better performing, more tunable, more comfortable, better interior materials, better noise deadening, better tech.

These things may not be what you value, and in that case, sure, it's weight for no gain, to you. If that's your position, I respect that. I just don't like when people handwave "it shouldn't weigh so much" without thinking about the goodies that weight allows.

It makes a better car for BMW because their market research has shown this to be a more saleable direction for them to head, much the same as their current aesthetic choices, as well as the flagship being a 5800lb SUV. It's also why the OG M2 switched to the S55 because people were worked up about an M car not having an S engine.

[aaaaah]

Originally Posted by 02M3ForMe

The F87 wasn’t better than the F87C with that approach; why would that work here?

BTW, I have yet to see a review with someone complaining about the car actually driving like a heavy car, all the complaints are based on what the spec sheet says. Weight isn’t a problem when it allows for a powerful motor, stiff chassis, excellent overall performance, and a reasonable price.

Weight is definitely a problem. See what happens when it gets out of control with the current generation C62. MB engineers when asked admitted to putting new tyres on the front end daily for journalists. New cars and the engineering that goes in to them are remarkable for their ability to hide the weight that they carry currently. Modern tyre technology goes a long way with this too.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by adc

You are wrong.

The M2 is very much for the track junkies, most of whom aren’t very rich. Those people can only buy used Caymans, or Camaros, or Vettes, and yes, M2’s.

We may be talking past each other. When I say it's not for track junkies, I mean it is not the primary audience BMW is selling this car to. BMW did not spec it for track junkies. It has heated powered seats and heavy wheels and no delete options (not even slicktop in the US). People track anything they can get their hands on, but the base G87 (like the base F87) isn't *really* intended (again, by BMW) to be a pure track car. It's not a CSL, I mean.

And why are you talking to me about consumables? I already said that that you'll burn through them faster. Here's my quote, maybe you misread it?

Just, ya know, save some extra money for the brakes and tires you'll burn up on the track. The weight is gonna hurt you there, I totally admit it.

If you are gonna go all ad hominem, at least make sure the person disagrees with you first. Sheesh.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by aaaaah

< A bunch of hypotheticals>

These don't sound plausible to me, but fine, I won't stop you from theorycrafting. I don't think the numbers work out, but I'll agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by aaaaah

It makes a better car for BMW because their market research has shown this to be a more saleable direction for them to head.

Yes, offering a car that outperforms its predecessor in almost every way does tend to increase sales. But that's not what you mean?

Are you are accusing buyers of bullying BMW into using a suboptimal engine and making a worse car on purpose? And BMW just going along with it?

I'm skeptical. I'm looking at the front grill of every modern M car. I don't think BMW gives even a single fuck about buyer outrage. I think they rather like controversy.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by aaaaah

New cars and the engineering that goes in to them are remarkable for their ability to hide the weight that they carry currently. Modern tyre technology goes a long way with this too.

In other words, weight isn't a problem because of all this fancy engineering we have that can mitigate it. I'm glad we agree.

Just because Merc shits the bed on their design, doesn't make the G87 bad. It performs great, so I'm sorry I still don't understand the objection here.

And look, I'm gonna leave it at that. We are really off-topic, I should have stopped a long time ago. We don't agree, I am OK with that, I hope we can still be friends.

[David.m]

Originally Posted by Squidget

So I'll argue there is both concrete and circumstantial evidence that the additional weight was, in fact, a required part of making a "better" car. Better performing, more tunable, more comfortable, better interior materials, better noise deadening, better tech.

These things may not be what you value, and in that case, sure, it's weight for no gain, to you. If that's your position, I respect that. I just don't like when people handwave "it shouldn't weigh so much" without thinking about the goodies that weight allows.
.

I think anyone would struggle to prove the weight was required, they simply didn't want to invest the $ required to keep weight down and why would they as it seems a substantial portion of their market (who don't even go on forums) aren't bothered about the compromises that comes with weight. BMW will never tell us but you have to wonder what implications there are for the CLAR platform and upcoming housing of batteries in hybrids (is the chassis weight more about safe battery storage than vehicle performance).

Something that is relevant and may be of interest, this weekend is the annual Bathurst 6hr 'production' car race. BMW ///M's have won the last few years, last year an M2C running all the M Performance cf parts. This year there are a bunch of F8X cars competing but no G8X, I'm guessing that because of control tyres and having to run with an extra 120kg over F8X no one feels the car will be competitive. Will have to wait till next year to see if anyone runs a G87.

The weight isn't just an issue for racing, if you track or get out on twisty roads there will be compromises. No doubt the G87 will be good for a hot lap, pushing hard over a 20-30min session or on a long twisty mountain road the F87 may well be better (or at least equal).

It's worth noting to that all the G87 M Performance bits seem to be about aesthetics whereas all those cf F87 parts, while expensive at least improved performance.

[mbanck]

Originally Posted by David.m

I think anyone would struggle to prove the weight was required, they simply didn't want to invest the $ required to keep weight down and why would they as it seems a substantial portion of their market (who don't even go on forums) aren't bothered about the compromises that comes with weight.

Who says they don't want to invest the $ to keep the weight down? I guess they will, just not for the base model (that has to be price competitive), but for a CS to come. The non-forged wheels are a pretty clear indication of that I'd say.

Also, I'm pretty sure M has only limited say over the base body (2er coupe) and can't just boss Munich around in making a lighter base car, they have to work with what BMW hands over to them.

[ronin13013]

Thats the subjective choice. I would never choose a Cadillac over anything. I considered the RS3 but like the rear end of the M2 better.

Originally Posted by Humdizzle

idk about that. they kind of gave a mixed review of positives and negatives during that little segment.

fast forward to 1:30 and 1:32 for fan questions

Matt flat out says he would rather take the CT4v Blackwing and RS3 over the new M2.

[Kroghj1]

50 pages of weight complaints, but I read every single one. BSM g87 just got scheduled for production and I have to fill the time somehow right?😂

In reality… BMWs have always been kind of heavy cars in comparison to sports cars. My OG 1 series was heavy. The F87 CS is heavy. And the g87 is heavy.

My last fun car was a carbon tubbed Alfa Romeo 4C, but swapping to g87 so my toddler can continue to grow into a car nut.

The Alfa was a little over 2,000 pounds and did 4.0s 0-60 with only about 250hp. Priced like the m2, roughly. It also didn’t have a glove box. Also no place to put a regular size drink or a phone. Paper thin seats. Radio sounded like it had half of a speaker. No muffler, who needs one. And no arm rest. Loved every mile.

I got a great deal on 4C when I bought it… why?

Because no one else actually BUYS the somewhat affordable small lightweight cars that we all claim to want, because of the compromises that come along with the affordable price point. Lotus has almost gone bankrupt like 27 times in the last decade, and Alfa stopped making the 4c with no follow up because it lost money on the project.

G87 levels of luxury in a lighter weight semi practical car are going to require a bigger budget… say, Maybe like $130k for a 911?

There should be a 50 page thread on how awesome it is that bmw managed to make a car perform like a 911, with an interior quality that’s just as nice, at half the price.

I’m personally getting a g87 because i think it’s a super well balanced value prop… heavy yes, but luxurious yes, performs well… yes.

Controversial part: I personally never got an f87 because I couldnt say the same thing about it… it didn’t really look “special”, wasn’t THAT much more practical than a real sports car (prior to having a kid), and wasn’t luxurious or practical enough to justify how heavy it was vs my cross shopping options (Lotus evora, Alfa 4C, 911). I gave a serious look at preowned f87s (again. I tried to want one, I really did) before placing my g87 deposit in October… and I still just couldn’t get over the interior quality for the price point. Maybe it needed some more weight or cost in there 😂😂😂

Point being: everything’s relative. Yes it’s heavy. So was the last one - as long as it hides it well (like most bmws do), who cares.
If you want a sports car, just go get an actual sports car. Just be prepared to pay more for a luxurious one, or be prepared to not have speakers or a glove box.

[m2ss]

Originally Posted by Carefree

Lost tons of fans? Well, US sales grew from 232,032 units in 2002 to over 346,023 in 2015. Almost every single year was a record year. It appears they’re gaining fans.

Given that over 70 million adults in the US are obese it makes perfect sense...the bigger the car the bigger the market.

Those sneaky Germans...

[Carefree]

Originally Posted by m2ss

Given that over 70 million adults in the US are obese it makes perfect sense...the bigger the car the bigger the market.

Those sneaky Germans...

No question about that. Next time visiting the local grocery store, take a walk down two adjacent aisles, snack foods and beverages. You’ll find about 130 feet of zero nutrition with 130 pounds of sugar and saturated fat. Obesity reigns.

[T_U_D]

OT, I cannot believe this thread is now nearly 52 pages long. Lock it down.

[M_Power Rob]

Originally Posted by Carefree

No question about that. Next time visiting the local grocery store, take a walk down two adjacent aisles, snack foods and beverages. You’ll find about 130 feet of zero nutrition with 130 pounds of sugar and saturated fat. Obesity reigns.

Look at the freezer section. A lot of items that have nutrition are also loaded with the same ingredients that will put the lbs on.

Then think about Costco , Sams and BJs...by the junk in larger formats. Tell me how that goes down in terms of weight gain.

Now where did I put those Reeses and Lays...

[M2PDX]

Originally Posted by Kroghj1

50 pages of weight complaints, but I read every single one. BSM g87 just got scheduled for production and I have to fill the time somehow right?😂

In reality… BMWs have always been kind of heavy cars in comparison to sports cars. My OG 1 series was heavy. The F87 CS is heavy. And the g87 is heavy.

My last fun car was a carbon tubbed Alfa Romeo 4C, but swapping to g87 so my toddler can continue to grow into a car nut.

The Alfa was a little over 2,000 pounds and did 4.0s 0-60 with only about 250hp. Priced like the m2, roughly. It also didn’t have a glove box. Also no place to put a regular size drink or a phone. Paper thin seats. Radio sounded like it had half of a speaker. No muffler, who needs one. And no arm rest. Loved every mile.

I got a great deal on 4C when I bought it… why?

Because no one else actually BUYS the somewhat affordable small lightweight cars that we all claim to want, because of the compromises that come along with the affordable price point. Lotus has almost gone bankrupt like 27 times in the last decade, and Alfa stopped making the 4c with no follow up because it lost money on the project.

G87 levels of luxury in a lighter weight semi practical car are going to require a bigger budget… say, Maybe like $130k for a 911?

There should be a 50 page thread on how awesome it is that bmw managed to make a car perform like a 911, with an interior quality that’s just as nice, at half the price.

I’m personally getting a g87 because i think it’s a super well balanced value prop… heavy yes, but luxurious yes, performs well… yes.

Point being: everything’s relative. Yes it’s heavy. So was the last one - as long as it hides it well (like most bmws do), who cares.
If you want a sports car, just go get an actual sports car. Just be prepared to pay more for a luxurious one, or be prepared to not have speakers or a glove box.

Finally, someone on here who gets it. You are EXACTLY right!

[zero21]

My SA drove my car to the gas station and was astonished at how direct the steering is compared to his M2CS.

[m2ss]

Originally Posted by Carefree

Obesity reigns.

Not only with people but also cars...

[adc]

Originally Posted by David.m

I think anyone would struggle to prove the weight was required, they simply didn't want to invest the $ required to keep weight down and why would they as it seems a substantial portion of their market (who don't even go on forums) aren't bothered about the compromises that comes with weight. BMW will never tell us but you have to wonder what implications there are for the CLAR platform and upcoming housing of batteries in hybrids (is the chassis weight more about safe battery storage than vehicle performance).

Something that is relevant and may be of interest, this weekend is the annual Bathurst 6hr 'production' car race. BMW ///M's have won the last few years, last year an M2C running all the M Performance cf parts. This year there are a bunch of F8X cars competing but no G8X, I'm guessing that because of control tyres and having to run with an extra 120kg over F8X no one feels the car will be competitive. Will have to wait till next year to see if anyone runs a G87.

The weight isn't just an issue for racing, if you track or get out on twisty roads there will be compromises. No doubt the G87 will be good for a hot lap, pushing hard over a 20-30min session or on a long twisty mountain road the F87 may well be better (or at least equal).

This, thank you for articulating it so clearly.

BMW made certain decisions regarding the G20 platform, which was going to sell the largest numbers of all its derivatives. It was what dictated the size, the compromises made (weight vs performance vs safety vs future upgradability etc), and only secondary thoughts were given to the 2 series.

To make a 2 series coupe (and 1 series coupe before that), they basically took a 3 series, chopped length from the wheelbase, recalculated the suspension geometry and calibration (a little bit at the front, a lot more at the rear) to make it handle well, and then styled it. It is the reason why the 1&2 series coupes have always had a slightly awkward side profile, to various degrees.

But what the M2 isn’t, is a separate platform. Everything that came into this conversation, both the pros and the cons, come from that simple platform inheritance.

I will say this. G8x cars put some credible numbers at the track, punching above their price category, much like the M cars have always done. The chassis tuning on the new generation cars is far better stock/OEM than for the F8x generation. Increased track width helps, as do the wider front tires, some magic perhaps done to the roll centers and rates, but most of the magic comes from the better shocks and the integration of their responses to the inputs of the driver. (I.e steering angle movement plus speed can result in increased roll resistance on the outer half and whatnot). It is why all the G8x cars come with the EDC suspension, including the most track focused one (CSL). Another contributing factor is the new generation tires, for ex the super special calibration that Michelin developed for the M cars, which is a half second faster per track mile than the regular 4S tire, and probably 2 seconds faster than the previous generation MPSS.

And I might be getting in line for an M2, if I like the way it drives. I’m looking for an excuse to keep the budget low and not jump to a Porsche. But none of this is an excuse for the initial engineering of the base platform, which was totally ok with the added belly fat. All the products based on this platform would have been better driving devices if they weighed 300lbs less. Every single one of them, in any driving circumstance. Let’s not gloss over this, and let’s not pretend than BMW had to increase the weight of the car to make it handle better - that is absurd.

[Carefree]

Originally Posted by M_Power Rob

Look at the freezer section. A lot of items that have nutrition are also loaded with the same ingredients that will put the lbs on.

Then think about Costco , Sams and BJs...by the junk in larger formats. Tell me how that goes down in terms of weight gain.

Now where did I put those Reeses and Lays...

Amen