BMW and M Power Owners

Smokey26 said:
How is it more bespoke? Its the same as in a M135i and 335i E9x. I also agree on the 1M coupe. The prices of those are mental.

The point is'nt that its 10grand, on its own, its the fact the car is 4x that with the same engine. Not hard to understand Fox.
Click to expand...

Except it isn't - the N55 in the M2 is the N55B30T0 which has quite a few changes from the N55B30O0 - different turbo manifold, different intake manifold, different crank, different pistons (from the S55 IIRC), different/uprated bearings, uprated radiator, possibly slightly bigger IC as well (some say 10% bigger but it has the same part number), different oil cooler too as well I think.

So... the same block and not a lot else.
 
[TW]Fox said:
It's not really pedantry is it, the M2 has over 100bhp more and is a similar size and weight!

If we were comparing a Golf R with an M240 then fair enough a strong view either way would be pedantic..
Click to expand...

Again, owned both the Golf and the M2 at the same time. They're not as far apart as you'd imagine, nor as much as the on paper specs would tell you. Have you owned either? The cars felt like they were competitors to each other, but they of course should not have been, they're from different classes of car.

Such things are very subjective aren't they. The M2 felt like a range step down after the E92 tbh. Environment and performance wise. The comp not so much.

There is no right answer here though is there, about something so subjective. Unless you're you, in which case you'll just carry on until people give up wanting to engage with you, which is fair enough I guess.
 
arfoll said:
Honestly people are too worried about the specs and the street cred, otherwise they'd likely all be in an m240i. There you go, I said it.
Click to expand...

Ha, yes. It's all about the paper specs isn't it. Like internet top trumps. X car MUST be better cos the paper specs say so.
 
MacRS4 said:
Again, owned both the Golf and the M2 at the same time. They're not as far apart as you'd imagine, nor as much as the on paper specs would tell you. Have you owned either? The cars felt like they were competitors to each other, but they of course should not have been, they're from different classes of car.
Click to expand...

You can't just shut down any form of debate unless the other person has also owned both cars as very few people have owned both a BMW M2 and a Golf GTI. This isn't an internet pedant-fest over two very similar cars as it would be if we were arguing about a Civic Type R and a Golf GTI - they are very different in terms of the performance on offer. Paper stats are not everything but the difference in this case is absolutely night and day. The M2 is enormously more powerful than the Golf GTI. I have not owned a BMW M2 but I have owned numerous slower cars, most of which felt as quick if not quicker than a Golf GTI and none of which would see which way an M2 went.

I mean come on - the BMW M2 has 365bhp and weighs 1500kg. The Golf GTI has just 227bhp and weighs 1400kg. This isn't internet semantics. This is an absolutely enormous difference.

Like I said I've not had the pleasure of the M2, but I have driven a Golf and frankly even my tedious diesel 5 Series is quicker than the Golf. Which is absolutely not intended to take anything away from the Golf - the GTI is an excellent car - but it's performance is such that there is even space above it in the same range for a faster Golf.

Such things are very subjective aren't they. The M2 felt like a range step down after the E92 tbh. Environment and performance wise.
Click to expand...

But this is fair enough and a completely different point. It's absolutely correct, too - the M2 is after all a 2 Series, which is a Coupe 1 Series, a car that starts at under £20k. It's going to feel like one inside, too. In this regard, yes, the Golf is probably as nice inside if not more so in areas. But we're talking about performance, right, not interior plastics quality?

Remember - this started purely based on a comment you made about the performance - or lack therefore - of the M2. A car that by any accepted definition is indeed 'massively quick'.

Unless you're you, in which case you'll just carry on until people give up wanting to engage with you, which is fair enough I guess.
Click to expand...

Yea, how dare I want to engage in discussion on a car forum that stretches beyond simply 'own both or go away' :p
 
MacRS4 said:
There is no right answer here though is there, about something so subjective. Unless you're you, in which case you'll just carry on until people give up wanting to engage with you, which is fair enough I guess.
Click to expand...

As an elite tier poster Fox posts until proven wrong, he is presenting you facts and debating the merits of what you have claimed, the main purpose for an internet message forum such as the cesspit that is OcUK's forums. I see what you are saying about subjective issues, but the notion the M2 is close to a GTi and is within its class is an opinion not going to be held by many, because its a bit.... wrong? They are both genuinely sporty and are cars, but a wide gap filled with lots of other cars exists before you get to an M2 up from a Golf GTi?
 
hurfdurf said:
As an elite tier poster Fox posts until proven wrong, he is presenting you facts and debating the merits of what you have claimed, the main purpose for an internet message forum such as the cesspit that is OcUK's forums. I see what you are saying about subjective issues, but the notion the M2 is close to a GTi and is within its class is an opinion not going to be held by many, because its a bit.... wrong? They are both genuinely sporty and are cars, but a wide gap filled with lots of other cars exists before you get to an M2 up from a Golf GTi?
Click to expand...
Surely the better comparison would be the golf R to the M2?
 
theone8181 said:
Surely the better comparison would be the golf R to the M2?
Click to expand...

It'd certainly be the more objective one, yes. The M2 doesn't feel particularly quick which is the point I was trying to make. The subjective opinion of feeling, rather than the paper specs. The experience wasn't what I was expected - it was one of the reasons I switched from the manual after the garage convinced me the other one was better. It's a great car, I'm not saying it isn't, it just felt closer to the Golf we had than the M3 I had previously.

The comp is different. The performance in that is brutal when you turn stuff up. The only thing I miss about my old '2 is the sound, everything else is better in the comp. Everything. It's what I hoped the original M2 would be, but wasn't quite.

But hey ho. Objectivity about cars is hard to come by isn't it.
 
I know I'm going to regret this but...

But this is fair enough and a completely different point. It's absolutely correct, too - the M2 is after all a 2 Series, which is a Coupe 1 Series, a car that starts at under £20k. It's going to feel like one inside, too. In this regard, yes, the Golf is probably as nice inside if not more so in areas. But we're talking about performance, right, not interior plastics quality?

Remember - this started purely based on a comment you made about the performance - or lack therefore - of the M2. A car that by any accepted definition is indeed 'massively quick'.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the experience of owning it, and the perception of performance. The M2 does not, to me, feel particularly quick or exciting, which was the point I was trying to make. Add to that the fact that it feels like a 2 series inside, because it is, (I.e. like the GTi to the Golf) and perhaps you can stretch to understanding what I was trying to get to. It was step down from the M3 both in experience AND performance, and the way it delivered that performance wasn't that entertaining. Wasn't the M2 faster than the V8 M3 on paper? Certainly didn't feel like it.

The most exciting thing about the M2 was hitting a rough bit of road mid-corner - it'd feel like it was about to bounce you in to a field.
 
MacRS4 said:
Wasn't the M2 faster than the V8 M3 on paper?
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was? I thought the M3 was a few tenths quicker to 60 and no doubt pulled a bigger gap the faster you went given the BHP advantage

The M2 is certainly much closer to the E92 in terms of pace than it is a GTI on paper though.
 
4.5 on the DTC M2 I think? But then my E92 was a manual. I don't think they were far off from each other specs wise, but they certainly were in experience. I think it's probably down to how that performance is delivered.

The performance of the M2C in comparison, like I say above, is brutal. If you can get the launch right that is, otherwise you just make a lot of noise.
 
I'm not sure about the M2C, but on a road in Mexico my M140i is pretty much the same speed in a straight line as my mates M2. Sometimes he pulls slightly ahead, other times I do. I know once a corner shows up it'll be a different story.
 
I am wondering if you guys are trolling, on drugs, or perhaps both?

Having owned an E92 M3 and pushed it to the limits on track and now owning an M2, the two aren't far apart in terms of outright performance. The E92 is slightly faster to 60, the M2 is slightly faster over the 1/4 mile. The extra torque of the M2 makes it faster point to point on the road, all day, every day. Having owned both, I would always choose to drive the M2 over the E92 M3 when going out for a hoon.

M2 vs M2C there's nothing at all in it on paper. The M2C might be more "brutal" in its power delivery (because the S55 is known for having pretty poor/spiky power delivery) but it isn't faster. Again, it comes down to personal preference as to how they both drive but any implication that one is significantly faster than the other is, at best, misleading. Some might consider the front end sharpness improvements to be worth having with the extra weight and other negatives of the M2C but I didn't. I don't think I would have bought an M2C over my M2 even if the cost was identical :)
 
Then you have the right car for you don't you?

I didn't. I didn't particularly rate it. It was a great car but I found it disappointing. It's kinda what I'd have expected an M135 to be like tbh. I thought it was dull and unexciting in a way the M2C isn't, and the interior wasn't up to what I was used to. I am neither on drugs or trying to troll you.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox said:
It's not the same, it's different - hence the difference in power output.

The 1M however had exactly the same state of tune as the Z4 35iS.
Click to expand...

Must be. You can't remap these cars and gain 60bhp at all.

A stock M2 isnt what id call quick by any stretch. 360bhp and 1600KG but then it depends on ya perspective. If you drive a honda jazz it will be.

The z4 was 300bhp. The 1M was 365. Seeing as you drive a 5 series derv ill stop listening to your bull now.....:p
 
Smokey26 said:
The z4 was 300bhp. The 1M was 365. Seeing as you drive a 5 series derv ill stop listening to your bull now.....
Click to expand...

You're just plain wrong there.

The Z4 35iS was 335bhp, exactly the same as the 1M Coupe.

It's probably an idea to make sure you are right before accusing others of posting bull :p
 
[TW]Fox said:
You're just plain wrong there.

The Z4 35iS was 335bhp, exactly the same as the 1M Coupe.

It's probably an idea to make sure you are right before accusing others of posting bull :p
Click to expand...

:D He's not responded to my earlier post either.

I had a Z4 sDrive35i (not the iS) and that was 306hp. The M2 is quite a lot quicker than that too :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom