[Sophisticated Redneck]

Originally Posted by DanG

I don’t get these drag races. I love my M2 because of the handling not because it is fast in a straight line.

To each their own. I can appreciate handling but being that I Iive in Phoenix and 99.9 percent of our roads are based on a grid, fun roads with tight turns/sweeping corners are a myth to us...kinda like snow....but long stretches of flat roads are everywhere so drag racing and 0-60 blasts it is!

[3002 tii]

Originally Posted by DanG

I don’t get these drag races. I love my M2 because of the handling not because it is fast in a straight line.

Some people want both, some of which these cars do offer.

[Mako]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

The M8 starts at $133k and the carerra s starts at $113k so only a $20k difference in base price. And if you know anything about Porsche you know the option list is longggg and expensive and to get it equipped comparably to an M8 you are probably looking at about the same cost in the end.

If you price out a C4S with similar options to a M8C the Porsche will be about $2,000 more. A lot of people might cross shop but in the end I would guess very different buyers (M8 much larger car).

[Big boi m5]

Originally Posted by DanG

I don't get these drag races. I love my M2 because of the handling not because it is fast in a straight line.

Slower than the M4 though?

[Pentium]

This Porsche is impressive!!

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by SleepingBMW

Slower than the M4 though?

Why wouldn't it be? Same motor, extra weight. Is there a world that it wouldn't be slower?

[04cobra]

Mad the GT500 wasnt in this mix, would have loved to see how it performed in the 1/2 mile, but they most likely filmed this before they could get their hands on one.

Also that Lambo SUV......is way faster than I thought it was. Really going to need to mod my Jeep now to take out all the soccer moms on the way home from school :-/

[P1]

Originally Posted by Conissah

This is exactly why it makes ZERO sense to me when people get into arguments, specifically on this forum, about lap times and 0-60 times and such... There are FAR too many variables at play. Hellcat wasn't launched proplerly, M2C loaner has shit brakes or bad tires or both, pro drivers have more driving skill in their fingers than most people do in their whole bodies, one side of the strip may have had more grip than the other, wrong settings in the car, cold tires, amount of fuel in the tank, differing tire pressures, etc.

I could go out right now and have my M2 smoked by someone in a mini-van, because it's pouring rain and I wouldn't get any traction. I don't give a shit if Randy Probst or *insert pro driver here* can do 1/4 seconds faster around a track in a C8 than the M2C... It DOESN'T translate to normal application, and most time comparisons are well within margin of error. It's stupid. If it makes you smile behind the wheel, then who cares... I've never heard anyone comparing stock lap times of cars, other than 12 year olds on Forza...

/rant

Amen, brother. These silly little videos are cute to watch when bored at work, but make absolutely no difference when shopping for a car.

[VipinLJ]

Originally Posted by P1et

Amen, brother. These silly little videos are cute to watch when bored at work, but make absolutely no difference when shopping for a car.

I agree. There’s no way I’m going to buy a Senna over an M2C. I’d like to keep my kidneys and part of my liver.

[dzu]

Originally Posted by VipinLJ

I agree. There’s no way I’m going to buy a Senna over an M2C. I’d like to keep my kidneys and part of my liver.

[Alfisti]

Jesus h the porsche, that is ridiculous. Other than the Senna it's likely the best handling car too, what a weapon. I know it's stupid expensive but my gosh, it's basically second after a million dollar supercar, that's ridiculous.

[///M TOWN]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Porsche ponies pull harder.

Porsche knows precisely how to get the power down.

[FCBayernFTW]

Any surprises?

[Big boi m5]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Why wouldn't it be? Same motor, extra weight. Is there a world that it wouldn't be slower?

Sure, it's not really much lighter you see. The M2 was never intended to be made and the 2 series is the budget bmw in general and the chassis was made to be cheap not light weight.
Since demand was there bmw made the M2 work as an afterthought. But it's still an S55 taped into a small but massive chassis. It's like a black hole.
3350 for the M2 and 3410 for the M4? 8.1 power to weight ratio for both, which is very good.
GENERALLY smaller cars are seen as sportier because smaller = less weight. The M2 is not less weight. It's the same weight but a smaller size.

Consider now the advantages of a big car vs a small car. Big cars generally weigh more. But BMW plans ahead and makes the M4 have bits of aluminum and Carbon fiber in the chassis to save weight.
Bigger cars get bigger wheel bases. Bigger wheel base comes with inherent advantages. More stability at high speed and better pitch control under braking and accelerating. This means the M4 (and M5) can run a softer suspension set up and achieve everything an M2 can while being both more comfortable for the space and the ride smoothness. In addition under braking, trailing, and corner exit it's capable of smoother transitions. It also can hit curbs and bumps without the chassis upsetting which the M2 is less adept at this.

It's not just BMWs pricing model that reflects the superiority of the large cars. In GT becuase weight is balanced the bigger cars get more area for aero. In F1 the increasing number of street courses has led to longer wheel bases being preferred as they can handle the bumps.

The M2 having no weight benefit and equal power to weight is simply a squirrelly harder to control M4. Maybe you want this for fun sake, or maybe the smaller package psychologically feels better, but it has failed to outperform the M4. Maybe BMW refuses to give it the power that could give it an edge? Either way I hope that BMW gives the 2 series the proper M treatment with regards to weight management. A 3100 lbs M2 would love definately be a a real M2.

[Red Bread]

Except the manual M2C is 3,582 and the DSG is 3,655 pounds. I agree that a lighter M2 would be a great thing, but BMW seems to be more about added power and more weight these days.

[byroncheung]

Originally Posted by Conissah

This is exactly why it makes ZERO sense to me when people get into arguments, specifically on this forum, about lap times and 0-60 times and such... There are FAR too many variables at play. Hellcat wasn't launched proplerly, M2C loaner has shit brakes or bad tires or both, pro drivers have more driving skill in their fingers than most people do in their whole bodies, one side of the strip may have had more grip than the other, wrong settings in the car, cold tires, amount of fuel in the tank, differing tire pressures, etc.

well said... i mean, even my son's pinewood derby race would run the cars on all tracks and take the best time... we are supposed to take these results seriously?

[Moflow]

Originally Posted by SleepingBMW

GENERALLY smaller cars are seen as sportier because smaller = less weight. The M2 is not less weight. It's the same weight but a smaller size.

Consider now the advantages of a big car vs a small car. Big cars generally weigh more. But BMW plans ahead and makes the M4 have bits of aluminum and Carbon fiber in the chassis to save weight.
Bigger cars get bigger wheel bases. Bigger wheel base comes with inherent advantages. More stability at high speed and better pitch control under braking and accelerating. This means the M4 (and M5) can run a softer suspension set up and achieve everything an M2 can while being both more comfortable for the space and the ride smoothness. In addition under braking, trailing, and corner exit it's capable of smoother transitions. It also can hit curbs and bumps without the chassis upsetting which the M2 is less adept at this.

It's not just BMWs pricing model that reflects the superiority of the large cars. In GT becuase weight is balanced the bigger cars get more area for aero. In F1 the increasing number of street courses has led to longer wheel bases being preferred as they can handle the bumps.

The M2 having no weight benefit and equal power to weight is simply a squirrelly harder to control M4. Maybe you want this for fun sake, or maybe the smaller package psychologically feels better, but it has failed to outperform the M4. Maybe BMW refuses to give it the power that could give it an edge? Either way I hope that BMW gives the 2 series the proper M treatment with regards to weight management. A 3100 lbs M2 would love definately be a a real M2.

I agree with you on some of your points, the M2 and especially the M2C are quite the little porkers. I'd also agree that the M4 is a nicer car and is probably a little faster.

I think you're oversimplifying things regarding wheelbase. A longer wheelbase is better for bumps, but it also is less good for rotating. There is no perfect wheelbase length as everyone is going to prefer a different feeling for how their car handles. Some people might find the relative lack of rotation and unwieldiness that comes with being a physically bigger car more difficult than something shorter. Lord knows, the thought of driving a long wheelbase 7-series around where I live sounds significantly more difficult than doing the same a 2-series.

I guess what i'm saying is that lateral G's are objective, but 'handling' as a general concept, is always going to be subjective. And most people who review the M2 and the M4 come away subjectively feeling like the M2 handles better. So, you say "squirlier, harder to control M4" I say "M4 optimized for autocrosses and tight technical roads rather than for high speeds and sweepers."