[rofsky]

Originally Posted by M2siast

What didn’t you like about the M2 driving?

It was a lot more sloppy than the M4, Like I said, the tires were greasy so that could have had a lot to do with it, but I just did not feel like it was a confidence inspiring car compared to the M4, considering the size difference and it only being a little heavier the M4 just felt more solid. I drove the M4 on the bigger thermal track, And the M2 on the small BMW track in the picture above, so it’s not the best comparison. The other thing is they were very specific on car settings when we got in the driver seat., Even comparing to my x3mc I didn’t like the way the power came on either, I didn’t paddle shift it but it also seemed like even in 3, it shifted less than ideal. I still threw down fast times, and I’m not dissing the car, since im an M fan. It just seemed like it missed the mark for me and I would get an m3 or m4 over m2 also because I like larger tracks / turns vs tighter kart style tracks. I raced sportbikes for a while so I may be a little bias too.

[KC87ZB]

Road and Track / Car and Driver basically the same. When looking at value and the ITS I can see where their initial assessment comes from.

However, the ITS is really a dressed up CTR or a fancy $40k car. I mean seriously, why buy the Acura, buy the Honda and save 15k, if you can find one. I find it interesting that you can not really buy a CTR but the ITS is much more available, marketing strategy??

Anyway, conspiracy theories aside, the M2 is a real performance car, the ITS is not. Never should a FWD car win a PCOTY it’s just wrong. The ITS may be the best sporty sedan but is not any more than that.

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by rofsky

It was a lot more sloppy than the M4, Like I said, the tires were greasy so that could have had a lot to do with it, but I just did not feel like it was a confidence inspiring car compared to the M4, considering the size difference and it only being a little heavier the M4 just felt more solid. I drove the M4 on the bigger thermal track, And the M2 on the small BMW track in the picture above, so it’s not the best comparison. The other thing is they were very specific on car settings when we got in the driver seat., Even comparing to my x3mc I didn’t like the way the power came on either, I didn’t paddle shift it but it also seemed like even in 3, it shifted less than ideal. I still threw down fast times, and I’m not dissing the car, since im an M fan. It just seemed like it missed the mark for me and I would get an m3 or m4 over m2 also because I like larger tracks / turns vs tighter kart style tracks. I raced sportbikes for a while so I may be a little bias too.

Thanks, yeah I’m not thinking you’re dissing the car, you just didn’t provide much info other than “I liked the other car more”, reason I asked, to understand how these cars compare since I haven’t driven an M3 myself.

[Bumpinjeep]

Originally Posted by rofsky

Haha! Thats awesome. I have wondered though, because the tires on the M2 I had were terrible I’m sure you’ve heard the speech how they were done with all of their tires for the year and we were dealing with whatever was on the car oem. They were roasted and we drove those things hard. The red one was super nice, not as good as I was hoping for tho

I did ask two of the instructors what their favorite car was and they both said the M3.

I was in the black one in the back. But yes, the tires on the cars definitely had some heat cycles. I did a review of my experience a few months back and posted it here.
I loved the M4, came away with both cars being really trackable, but I liked how I can rotate the 2 with the throttle easier than the 4 due to the wheelbase size. The 4 was planted as hell though, when you're doing 120+ into corners, you need that confidence.

[Montaver]

Originally Posted by LCDRJohn

I had the opposite feeling on the Integra than R&T.

For a mid $50K car (yikes!!!), the "bones" are rooted in a $25K civic, which means that things will be missing in aspects of durability and quality (not to mention slow/laggy satnav and entertainment cpu).

The lack of an engine that justifies the price is a huge omission. And I've owned cars with those little overblown turbos. They sound like vacuum cleaners and have boring linear thrust contained in the midrange only. Pulling that car to readline is as exciting as watching the nightly news. Not knocking the car, but it is a $35K car, and would have been in saner times. A few years ago, I passed on a new NSX that the dealer and acura were putting a $70K rebate on. Why? because it did not have the quality feel that the R8 had. The materials, including paint, were Accord-levels....

Acura has some of the best and most advanced tri layer paint out there, way better than anything BMW is putting out. Hard to really criticise them there.

You could also say the M2 ‘bones’ are based on a $38k 2 series. Doesn’t make either of them bad cars. The integra, just like the M2, is actually quite a unique proposition in its segment. The Acura is basically a grown up Type R, nice for enthusiasts to have options.

[Dave07997S]

The fact they chose the glorified Honda over the M2 and the Mustang DH makes me crap on this article. Also the M2 would probably have beaten the DH if it was in more track focused tires.

[AYounglove10]

Originally Posted by Rat_House

Ugh Matt Farrah is the worst, paid shill with extreme biases

Please explain? Not arguing, just wondering your thoughts.

I listen to his biweekly podcast, and have for years. While he does get quite political (too much for my taste at times), I think he’s quite balanced in how he reviews cars. He does a good job putting context to his reviews and opinions/ I.e. if one car vs another had been on the same tires, or discussing value for price point, etc.

He’s most certainly in the camp of not being the most fond of modern BMWs. But he also will provide the caveat that look and tastes are subjective.

Perhaps he provided a more balanced view during long format podcasts vs brief videos. At least with cars, anyway.

[JABCAT]

Originally Posted by rofsky

Like my x3mc more than the m2 no question. Just my opinion.

I have a '22 X3MC and a '23 M2, and I feel the complete opposite. I think the X3MC is awesome, but my M2 is a notch above and a better DD.

[KC87ZB]

Originally Posted by Montaver

Acura has some of the best and most advanced tri layer paint out there, way better than anything BMW is putting out. Hard to really criticise them there.

You could also say the M2 ‘bones’ are based on a $38k 2 series. Doesn’t make either of them bad cars. The integra, just like the M2, is actually quite a unique proposition in its segment. The Acura is basically a grown up Type R, nice for enthusiasts to have options.

I can agree on the paint but your other comparison is just completely wrong. The basis of the M2 is the M3/4, using the same subframes, engine, transmission. It is way closer to an M2 than a 4 cyl 2 series. That is not the case with the ITS which is a fancy CTR; there are no improvements in engine, transmission, or suspension.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by Montaver

You could also say the M2 ‘bones’ are based on a $38k 2 series. Doesn’t make either of them bad cars. The integra, just like the M2, is actually quite a unique proposition in its segment. The Acura is basically a grown up Type R, nice for enthusiasts to have options.

Except a G87 is literally NOT a dressed up 2 series, the chassis is different and they share almost no performance-related parts.

HUGE difference, and an easy mistake to make. Because, yes, that's usually how it works. But this generation, the M2 is basically a shortened M4 with slightly softer rear springs.

Edit: ninja'd!

[Montaver]

Originally Posted by KC87ZB

I can agree on the paint but your other comparison is just completely wrong. The basis of the M2 is the M3/4, using the same subframes, engine, transmission. It is way closer to an M2 than a 4 cyl 2 series. That is not the case with the ITS which is a fancy CTR; there are no improvements in engine, transmission, or suspension.

The CTR has a ton of changes over a regular Civic, in the same way an M2 has a ton of changes over a regular 2 series. The Integra is a CTR with more luxury features added. BMW do something similar - it’s called Alpina. Hence why you can buy and M3 (CTR) or an Alpina B3 (Integra type S).

[KC87ZB]

Originally Posted by Montaver

The CTR has a ton of changes over a regular Civic, in the same way an M2 has a ton of changes over a regular 2 series. The Integra is a CTR with more luxury features added. BMW do something similar - it’s called Alpina. Hence why you can buy and M3 (CTR) or an Alpina B3 (Integra type S).

The comparison is M2 to base 2 series and Acura ITS to Honda CTR. You are just wrong, move on.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by rofsky

It was a lot more sloppy than the M4, Like I said, the tires were greasy so that could have had a lot to do with it, but I just did not feel like it was a confidence inspiring car compared to the M4, considering the size difference and it only being a little heavier the M4 just felt more solid. I drove the M4 on the bigger thermal track, And the M2 on the small BMW track in the picture above, so it’s not the best comparison. The other thing is they were very specific on car settings when we got in the driver seat., Even comparing to my x3mc I didn’t like the way the power came on either, I didn’t paddle shift it but it also seemed like even in 3, it shifted less than ideal. I still threw down fast times, and I’m not dissing the car, since im an M fan. It just seemed like it missed the mark for me and I would get an m3 or m4 over m2 also because I like larger tracks / turns vs tighter kart style tracks. I raced sportbikes for a while so I may be a little bias too.

I think a lot of this was specific car variance, such as wear. The M2 shares probably 90% of its performance parts with the M4. Same motor, same transmission (assuming AT), same core suspension. While there are differences, the big ones being the shorter wheelbase, and softer rear, the cars drive similar to each other.

For instance, handling is roughly the same except the M2 loses the rear a bit faster. But turn in and braking is mostly the same (at least until the M2 fades because it lacks ceramics).

And power delivery is nearly the same, same motor after all. W've seen that noted in both dyno and butt comparos. The M4 does get a bit more boost at the high end, but it's not an earth shattering difference. (And that difference is artificial and can be coded out.)

Anecdotally, I'd say the M2 is probably 90% of an M4, at 75% of the price (or less, depending on specs). That's the value-ratio that BMW is giving us, and it's a pretty good deal IMO. But if price isn't a concern, sure the M4 is more of a track weapon, no argument.

[Montaver]

Originally Posted by Squidget

Except a G87 is literally NOT a dressed up 2 series, the chassis is different and they share almost no performance-related parts.

HUGE difference, and an easy mistake to make. Because, yes, that's usually how it works. But this generation, the M2 is basically a shortened M4 with slightly softer rear springs.

Edit: ninja'd!

The 2 and 3 are built on the same CLAR platform. The 2 series is a shortened 3 series. The M2 can share the M3 subframe/running gear as a result. Both cars are based on cooking BMW’s - that’s literally what M division does. Take the standard platform of the generation (G series in this case) and modify it.

[Montaver]

Originally Posted by KC87ZB

The comparison is M2 to base 2 series and Acura ITS to Honda CTR. You are just wrong, move on.

Wrong about what?

[M2siast]

Guys, it doesn’t matterrrrrrrrrr………….

Happy Sunday!

[Fugly M3]

Originally Posted by baron95

1 Weight. Everyone keeps on harping on how heavy the M2 is, but it is only 41 lbs (less than 19KG) heavier than the 2-seat pure sports car the Nismo Z, and it is 230 lbs (>100KG) lighter than the Mustang.

If it weighed what the Porsche does, or even 100lbs more, it'd have won the test.

[NewToM]

Originally Posted by Squidget

Except a G87 is literally NOT a dressed up 2 series, the chassis is different and they share almost no performance-related parts.

HUGE difference, and an easy mistake to make. Because, yes, that's usually how it works. But this generation, the M2 is basically a shortened M4 with slightly softer rear springs.

Edit: ninja'd!

Type faster!

[Ilyam5]

Originally Posted by Montaver

The CTR has a ton of changes over a regular Civic, in the same way an M2 has a ton of changes over a regular 2 series. The Integra is a CTR with more luxury features added. BMW do something similar - it’s called Alpina. Hence why you can buy and M3 (CTR) or an Alpina B3 (Integra type S).

You are correct. Acura is an amazing car and a great achievement by Honda. To non believers. Watch this review (skip,to,30 min for driving if short on time

Accura feels and drives much lighter vs m2. It is in fact a much lighter car and changes directions gloriously. It is porsche like in its transitions.
Acura’s shifter is ages ahead of bmw. Transmission is brilliant. Can be shifter very fast and precise. Plus its a 4 door car with huge hatch which makes it a much better daily or family car. More comfortable too

[D22M2]

The constant butthurt around here over everything is laughable .

[My M3]

I too have completed the M driving course at night in the rain I thought the M2 was a great car however it still isn’t up there with an M3

[My M3]

I have a mate with a Shelby & 825 horsepower he can’t stay anywhere near an M3 on the track. Not sure sometimes how they rate these cars