http://autoweek.com/article/drive-revie ... dailydrive
No mention of the ATS-V though. Also you aren't getting into an ATS-V for less than $60k, so there's that also. However the M2 is one size smaller, lighter and decontented so it's not really the same class. But, Cadillac has no competing vehicle...again.
BMW goes back to roots w/ new M2
Re: BMW goes back to roots w/ new M2
GM hates small performance cars. For some reason, they don't get that smaller size and less weight could inherently make a better performance vehicle (Or they do get that and have to protect their precious Corvette...). I think I see a trend...Maybe they should work with Mazda for a little bit... It is like they both have exactly what the other needs. GM has big power and reliability in a small package, and Mazda gets small chassis dynamics, tuning, and drivability (I know GM has this in it's bigger cars like the Camaro, Corvette and SS, but they reuse to translate that to a small or even mid sized car).
Re: BMW goes back to roots w/ new M2
Somehow when the Germans do it, it validates the market.
Now I would argue that there's plenty of performance, driving enjoyment and overall athleticism in a Camaro 1SS, which is quite a bit cheaper than an M2. In fact the M2 may not do anything better than a Camaro 1SS. That said, GM currently doesn't have a RWD platform smaller than Alpha. And it's a little strange to be sitting here saying that they should.
Now I would argue that there's plenty of performance, driving enjoyment and overall athleticism in a Camaro 1SS, which is quite a bit cheaper than an M2. In fact the M2 may not do anything better than a Camaro 1SS. That said, GM currently doesn't have a RWD platform smaller than Alpha. And it's a little strange to be sitting here saying that they should.
Re: BMW goes back to roots w/ new M2
Although it is compact in size, the manual M2 weighs in at 3450 lbs, within 100 lbs of the M4! I think the Camaro SS is still a couple hundred pounds heavier, but it's not as if the M2 is an FR-S.
Re: BMW goes back to roots w/ new M2
Yeah and aside from the numbers, I would be surprised if the M2 was leagues ahead of the Camaro dynamically. I'd like to see a comparison, with Pobst at the wheel. Given the size of the M2, it would have been more interesting at, say, 3,100 lbs or something.
Re: BMW goes back to roots w/ new M2
The comparison I would like to see is the V6 Camaro 1LE vs the M2 on a racetrack. They have almost identical weight, but the Camaro is down about 40 HP. This could be GM's opportunity to prove they don't always need to take the sledgehammer approach to being faster on a racetrack.
Re: BMW goes back to roots w/ new M2
Ah I didn't think of that. The V6 1LE will have a pretty solid ~$20k price advantage, potentially making the "bargain" M2 look...overpriced.
But please don't discount the fact that the Camaro is SAE certified. The M2 probably has more than 40hp more.
But please don't discount the fact that the Camaro is SAE certified. The M2 probably has more than 40hp more.
Re: BMW goes back to roots w/ new M2
More M2 press: http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-bmw ... A527A97863
This car achieves GM-levels of performance. Impressive. But some more words about the curb weight:
And some words about performance:
This car achieves GM-levels of performance. Impressive. But some more words about the curb weight:
So for all that, only 25 lbs lighter than the US spec M4.In grand 2 Series tradition, the M2 is shockingly overweight. Despite being 8.3 inches shorter and 0.6 inch narrower than an M4, the M2 we tested weighs only 101 fewer pounds—and our M2 was a European-spec pre-production car that lacked some weight-adding features that come standard on U.S.-spec M2s, namely power seats, automatic climate control, and an upgraded Harman Kardon stereo with satellite radio. We expect the U.S. car to be at least 75 pounds heavier, and indeed BMW of North America lists the weight difference between the M2 and M4 at just 25 pounds.
And some words about performance:
9 mph of trap speed difference is huge. Put another way: the M4 will pull a lot like a CTS-V2. The M2 will pull a lot like a CTS-V1. That is why 0-60 doesn't answer the mail for me.And now, ladies and gentlemen, the numbers. The 2016 BMW M2 accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 4.2 seconds. It brakes from 60 mph in 107 feet. It pulls 1.01 g around the skidpad, and completes the Motor Trend figure eight in 24.1 seconds at an average of 0.82 g.
To put those in perspective, here are the same numbers laid down by a manual-tranny F82-chassis M4: 0-60 in 4.2 seconds. 60-0 braking in 108 feet. 1.00 g on the skidpad, and the figure eight in 24.1 seconds at 0.82 g.
Or, put another way: The M2 ties the M4 in every performance measure.
Oh, I forgot one: the quarter mile. The M2 runs through 1,320 feet in 12.8 seconds at 107.5 mph. The M4? Noticeably quicker: 12.5 seconds at 116.5 mph. The reason for the discrepancy there is simple: The M2 has a higher coefficient of drag (0.35 versus 0.34, with similar frontal area) and 14 percent fewer horsepower, but only 2.9 percent less mass to accelerate. That it can hang with the M4 on the run to 60 speaks to the cars’ relative ability to put power to the ground—and difficulty putting power down has been a criticism of the M4 since it debuted. But once traction is no longer an issue, the M4 walks away.
Re: BMW goes back to roots w/ new M2
0-60 becomes less and less relevant the lower the number is due to the lack of resolution.
Re: BMW goes back to roots w/ new M2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5b3T07jYKQ
I'd like to see a back to back with the Camaro SS. We know how it does against the expensive M4 but maybe the M2 offers more of the tactility that the M4 was lacking, at a lower price.
I'd like to see a back to back with the Camaro SS. We know how it does against the expensive M4 but maybe the M2 offers more of the tactility that the M4 was lacking, at a lower price.