[GregW / Oregon]

I assume others have received this. While I'm skeptical as to how this will be utilized (or at all) I will certainly provide some.

[M_Power Rob]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

I assume others have received this. While I'm skeptical as to how this will be utilized (or at all) I will certainly provide some.

I received it for my M240 last year (they actually sent it to me multiple times). I dont think its anything morenthan auto-generated and used for marketing purposes.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by M_Power Rob

I received it for my M240 last year (they actually sent it to me multiple times). I don't think its anything more than auto-generated and used for marketing purposes.

Although they do give you a chance to speak to someone. I remain skeptical, but it's nice to think you might have some input.

[yuzu]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

Although they do give you a chance to speak to someone. I remain skeptical, but it's nice to think you might have some input.

Which is exactly what a massive company wants you to think

[GregW / Oregon]

This is what I am emailing. Any other key points?

"Some thoughts on my new 2023 M2. For context, my first new BMW was a 1973 2002, and I have had the first of the last three generations of M3/4 Coupes, 2001, 2008 & 2015. The current G82 has gotten too big and too ugly (that grille!) for my taste, so I preordered the M2 in June of 2022.

• Love the power and handling. The weight has ballooned, not a good thing, but is mostly well-disguised.
• The ongoing reduction of physical buttons is not a good direction for the user. To have to go into a menu on screen to turn on and off the AC o adjust fan speed is one example of designers doing what’s easy (and cheaper to use software) rather than what is best for the driver.
• The fuel tank is too small. Despite the car being 3.5” longer than my E46 M3, the tank has shrunken from 16.6 to 13.4 gallons.
• I know you want to create distinction and separation from the M3/4, but I would gladly pay good money to get some of the options available on those (360-degree cameras, full Nappa leather, forged wheels, etc.). One shouldn’t be forced to get a bigger car to have niceties. Why should size equate to quality?!
• The exhaust valves should be controllable in any mode.
• It was not made known when I ordered that the wireless charger in the manual cars does not have NFC and that the digital key is not an option. Nor that it was in the armrest console in an awkward spot. I would not have gotten it if I had known.
• The owner’s manual is poor in terms of directing you to specific locations to do certain things. E.g., it talks about the ability to make profiles key-dependent but doesn’t direct you to where to actually do that.

Thanks for the opportunity for some feedback. I hope it is shared with those that have influence on product design and on the LCI of this car."

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

This is what I am emailing. Any other key points?

"Some thoughts on my new 2023 M2. For context, my first new BMW was a 1973 2002, and I have had the first of the last three generations of M3/4 Coupes, 2001, 2008 & 2015. The current G82 has gotten too big and too ugly (that grille!) for my taste, so I preordered the M2 in June of 2022.

• Love the power and handling. The weight has ballooned, not a good thing, but is mostly well-disguised.
• The ongoing reduction of physical buttons is not a good direction for the user. To have to go into a menu on screen to turn on and off the AC o adjust fan speed is one example of designers doing what’s easy (and cheaper to use software) rather than what is best for the driver.
• The fuel tank is too small. Despite the car being 3.5” longer than my E46 M3, the tank has shrunken from 16.6 to 13.4 gallons.
• I know you want to create distinction and separation from the M3/4, but I would gladly pay good money to get some of the options available on those (360-degree cameras, full Nappa leather, forged wheels, etc.). One shouldn’t be forced to get a bigger car to have niceties. Why should size equate to quality?!
• The exhaust valves should be controllable in any mode.
• It was not made known when I ordered that the wireless charger in the manual cars does not have NFC and that the digital key is not an option. Nor that it was in the armrest console in an awkward spot. I would not have gotten it if I had known.
• The owner’s manual is poor in terms of directing you to specific locations to do certain things. E.g., it talks about the ability to make profiles key-dependent but doesn’t direct you to where to actually do that.

Thanks for the opportunity for some feedback. I hope it is shared with those that have influence on product design and on the LCI of this car."

Nailed it.

[///M TOWN]

Originally Posted by M2siast

Nailed it.

Pretty much ❕

[Kevin_The_Clean1]

The fuel tank size on both the F87 & G87 M2's is beyond ridiculous. It's downright silly...

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by Kevin_The_Clean1

The fuel tank size on both the F87 & G87 M2's is beyond ridiculous. It's downright silly...

While on the Autobahn, I was thinking "if I were driving my M2 at 290km/h, how long would I be able to go?"

Thinking I'd probably have to fill up every 200km...

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by M2siast

While on the Autobahn, I was thinking "if I were driving my M2 at 290km/h, how long would I be able to go?"

Thinking I'd probably have to fill up every 200km...

You won’t get anywhere near 200km to a tank at 290km/h. Typical efficient cruising highway speed at 100 - 120km/h would have the M2 engine running at about 10% of maximum power output depending on accessory parasitic drain, at the 285km/h speed limiter would need about 85% of maximum power. Typical maximum thermal efficiency and consequent lowest specific fuel consumption is at about 75% of maximum power output, 85% would be a little less efficient and 15% power output would be about half the efficiency.

This would lead to about 5 times the fuel consumption compared with the most efficient cruising speed, i.e. 40 litres per 100km instead of 8 l/100km. 120km is the max realistic range at the speed limiter.

Here is a typical ICE thermal efficiency chart that maps well to specific fuel consumption:

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by aerobod

You won’t get anywhere near 200km to a tank at 290km/h. Typical efficient cruising highway speed at 100 - 120km/h would have the M2 engine running at about 10% of maximum power output depending on accessory parasitic drain, at the 285km/h speed limiter would need about 85% of maximum power. Typical maximum thermal efficiency and consequent lowest specific fuel consumption is at about 75% of maximum power output, 85% would be a little less efficient and 15% power output would be about half the efficiency.

This would lead to about 5 times the fuel consumption compared with the most efficient cruising speed, i.e. 40 litres per 100km instead of 8 l/100km. 120km is the max realistic range at the speed limiter.

Here is a typical ICE thermal efficiency chart that maps well to specific fuel consumption:

:O

Imagine that. No wonder not a lot of people drive too fast… lol with the price of gas and this range…

[Rx-7ames]

BMW is doing this at random, and some people are just called without receiving the email.

A client from my store was called by BMW NA to provide feedback on their X1 and share how their purchase and ownership experience was.

Their X1 had unfortunately been in the shop for 2 weeks, almost their entire ownership time, and BMW comp'd them $400. The client didn't ask for it or seek it. BMW just did it.