[iifymbro]

Originally Posted by baron95

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that BMW NA didn't want the M2 to post times too close to the M3CS (a car that costs twice as much). So the M3CS gets 3 sets of tires and 3 days (including 2 sets of Cup2s), and the M2 gets the heavy car, with a single set of worn tires at the end of the day for only 4 laps.

I mean.... I wouldn't want it to post close times if I were in charge of things at bmw, doesn't seem that outlandish that they tanked it on purpose.

[baron95]

Originally Posted by iifymbro

I mean.... I wouldn't want it to post close times if I were in charge of things at bmw, doesn't seem that outlandish that they tanked it on purpose.

Don't feed the conspiracy

[BackOnBlack]

Originally Posted by baron95

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that BMW NA didn't want the M2 to post times too close to the M3CS (a car that costs twice as much). So the M3CS gets 3 sets of tires and 3 days (including 2 sets of Cup2s), and the M2 gets the heavy car, with a single set of worn tires at the end of the day for only 4 laps.

They did not use any of the Cup 2 tires; first set had wrong front sizes and second set of fronts sent were Cup 2Rs, so they did not mix-and-match. M3CS time was on PZ4 tires, which are worse than the PS4S the M2 had.

[deneed4spd]

You guys are digging at a lot of things to explain the track time. G87 ran 1.6 secs faster than the F87C. Maybe with stock tires and sunroof it’s where it is suppose to be. There are other cars in its class that have better chassis with regular old PS4S that ran faster than the M2 such as CT4BW. M2 has an amazing engine and luxury. Other cars in its class might just have a better chassis, steering, suspension that ultimately beats it. Still more than 99.9 percent of us can handle. Just drive it and enjoy and who cares about track times.

[Bumpinjeep]

Originally Posted by deneed4spd

You guys are digging at a lot of things to explain the track time. G87 ran 1.6 secs faster than the F87C. Maybe with stock tires and sunroof it’s where it is suppose to be. There are other cars in its class that have better chassis with regular old PS4S that ran faster than the M2 such as CT4BW. M2 has an amazing engine and luxury. Other cars in its class might just have a better chassis, steering, suspension that ultimately beats it. Still more than 99.9 percent of us can handle. Just drive it and enjoy and who cares about track times.

What article were you reading? The hubbled car ran almost 3 seconds faster than the F87C.
The other cars that ran a faster time had
1. New tires (most importantly)
2. Go fast options
3. More than 4 rushed laps to get a time

It's not a conspiracy or anything, but the car left A LOT on the table, I would venture 5 seconds if it was a carbon pack car with the optional Cup2s. You lose a lot of time trying to stay in place with your left thigh against the door in corners, those carbon seats do wonders.

[JABCAT]

Originally Posted by Bumpinjeep

What article were you reading? The hubbled car ran almost 3 seconds faster than the F87C.
The other cars that ran a faster time had
1. New tires (most importantly)
2. Go fast options
3. More than 4 rushed laps to get a time

It's not a conspiracy or anything, but the car left A LOT on the table, I would venture 5 seconds if it was a carbon pack car with the optional Cup2s. You lose a lot of time trying to stay in place with your left thigh against the door in corners, those carbon seats do wonders.

Agreed. Personally, I don't care about track times, 1/4 mi times or anything else. I drive what I like regardless of what others think. What I, and others, are pointing out is the flaws in their methods leading to invalid conclusions of said "test".

Quote at 0:40 into the video, "each vehicle is configured in its highest performance or track-ready setup". The M2 was not configured in its highest performance or track-ready setup. They also stated it had worn tires & they ran it at a warmer time in the day. Based on that, the track time is invalid and thus conclusion that other vehicles in the category are faster.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by robopp

If that’s true, the new M5 is going to implode on any track.

Supposedly it is getting bigger brakes, but is otherwise close to an XM in a sedan body weighing about 2200kg / 4850 lb. So it will need better brakes with a weight not much less than the X5MC.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by Bumpinjeep

It's not a conspiracy or anything, but the car left A LOT on the table, I would venture 5 seconds if it was a carbon pack car with the optional Cup2s. You lose a lot of time trying to stay in place with your left thigh against the door in corners, those carbon seats do wonders.

You can get optional Cup2 in US?

PS4S and Cup2 are actually not that far apart in time. Not the delta that Cup2 had over Pilot Super Sport. TyreReviews on YT has some good dry weather tests PS4S vs Cup2. About .5 difference on a 1:10 lap with G82 using star spec PS4S.

[baron95]

Originally Posted by BackOnBlack

They did not use any of the Cup 2 tires; first set had wrong front sizes and second set of fronts sent were Cup 2Rs, so they did not mix-and-match. M3CS time was on PZ4 tires, which are worse than the PS4S the M2 had.

You are missing the point. The M3CS was there for 3 days with a plan to use multiple sets of tires. The M2 was there for an hour at the end of the day with a single set or worn tires and heaviest spec.

[Dave07997S]

Originally Posted by M3WC

You can get optional Cup2 in US?

PS4S and Cup2 are actually not that far apart in time. Not the delta that Cup2 had over Pilot Super Sport. TyreReviews on YT has some good dry weather tests PS4S vs Cup2. About .5 difference on a 1:10 lap with G82 using star spec PS4S.

There is hardly if any difference between the PS4S and the older PSS when it comes to dry grip. The PS4S is mainly only better than the PSS in the wet and wear. In fact when it comes to feel I prefer the PSS over the newer PS4S. I have owned both not only on my E92 M3 but also my current ride.

[c1pher]

Originally Posted by deneed4spd

You guys are digging at a lot of things to explain the track time. G87 ran 1.6 secs faster than the F87C. Maybe with stock tires and sunroof it’s where it is suppose to be. There are other cars in its class that have better chassis with regular old PS4S that ran faster than the M2 such as CT4BW. M2 has an amazing engine and luxury. Other cars in its class might just have a better chassis, steering, suspension that ultimately beats it. Still more than 99.9 percent of us can handle. Just drive it and enjoy and who cares about track times.

I’m happy where my M2 is. It’s a nice little GT you can live with day to day. I’m not so concerned about the lap times on bad tires.

[Good 4 2 reasons]

Let's not forget the "journalists" are so bad, when they posted the page for the m2 it has completely wrong specs listed. 600 something horsepower with a $130k MSRP. Really hard hitting facts based reporting...

BMW certainly could have put both feet forward with a track oriented build with proper tires.

Auto journalism isn't what it used to be.

Find auto youtubers you like and support their content.

[baron95]

Originally Posted by M3WC

You can get optional Cup2 in US?

PS4S and Cup2 are actually not that far apart in time. Not the delta that Cup2 had over Pilot Super Sport. TyreReviews on YT has some good dry weather tests PS4S vs Cup2. About .5 difference on a 1:10 lap with G82 using star spec PS4S.

We can't get Cup2 in the US in the G87 like you can in Europe. The Tyre Review test of Star Spec MPS4S vs Cup2 Connect was .7sec difference in the dry, which would be ~2sec difference at VIR. About what to expect.

But I think if the driver had more time in the M2 he'd easily be another 1-2 sec faster. He was clearly uncomfortable and tentative accelerating out of corners and if you can't do that correctly at VIR in a hi HP RWD car your times will suck.

[baron95]

Originally Posted by c1pher

I’m happy where my M2 is. It’s a nice little GT you can live with day to day. I’m not so concerned about the lap times on bad tires.

When you go out with a hot girl and you are very happy....then someone posts the worst picture possible of her on IG

I don't care, but a better picture would be nicer LOL.

[1slowspec3]

The biggest performance option is there. Its the automatic car. Roof and seats wont net you even half a second.

[myaghi]

Exactly what I was gonna say. Auto is way faster than manual on track, and from carbon roof + seats you won't gain any time in my opinion. It's a 1700kg+ car, 20-30kg won't influence that much, only maybe if you are Max Verstappen.
A full carbon pack M2 with tank full of gas will be heavier than a M2 with no carbon and sunroof and little fuel.
Most gain can be found in the tires (cup2 vs ps4s) and driving

[c1pher]

Originally Posted by baron95

When you go out with a hot girl and you are very happy....then someone posts the worst picture possible of her on IG

I don't care, but a better picture would be nicer LOL.

I prefer that actually because fewer people will be interested in her.

[Bumpinjeep]

Originally Posted by 1slowspec3

The biggest performance option is there. Its the automatic car. Roof and seats wont net you even half a second.

Roof and seats will absolutely net you far more than half a second. Don't know if you've tracked a car with normal seats and with bucket seats but there is a huge difference in car control. Seats without thigh and side bolstering move you around, no matter how tight you pull on that seat belt to keep you in place. You're constantly using your left leg to hold you in place in corners. With a proper bucket, you're in the thing and able to push the car.
The roof is worth time too, though nowhere near the seats. It's something you'll never feel on the street but will see the benefit on the track, less weight on top of the car, especially going through a corner can only benefit your lap time.
With the right options and fresh track tires, like literally all of the other cars in the test, you're looking at a significant difference in lap time, we're talking a 2:50/51.

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by Ravenseal

I don't pay attention to these anymore. They don't even normalize for tire compound and options. The other two cars that ran faster lap times than the M2 in the same category we're using brand new DOT R compound tires and the M2 was on worn PS4S. Why do they even bother with publishing such "objective journalism"?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here with "objective journalism". They get what they get from manufacturers and try to get the best time out of them yearly at VIR. Every year they also comment on what brands fitted for tires as some brands send spare and alternate tires while BMW usually just sends the cars on standard tires and nothing more. Would you rather they don't run BMW's at the event because of this? This is straight from their M240i run in 2023 where they acknowledge the M240i was faster than the RS3 at VIR with equal tires.

https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...ning-lap-2023/

This car had the RS3 beat until the Audi switched to its superhero tires, and the M240i’s time has substantially closed the gap with the last M2 Competition we ran (2:59.7).

If you have ever actually taken the time to read one of these from front to back you would know they put lot of emphasis on tires and the advantages some vehicles gain from using stickier compounds. What a reader gets out of these times is really up the the sensibilities of the reader. Any sensible reader could basically surmise that a base M2 is essentially as fast around VIR as the very top spec Nissan Z.

[iifymbro]

Originally Posted by heavyD^2

....and try to get the best time out of them yearly at VIR....

They did 4 laps at the end of the day, sure BMW messed up by giving them a M2 with worn tires and no spares but 4 laps in greasy conditions like c'mon lol

[See5]

Originally Posted by heavyD^2

I'm not sure what you are getting at here with "objective journalism". They get what they get from manufacturers and try to get the best time out of them yearly at VIR. Every year they also comment on what brands fitted for tires as some brands send spare and alternate tires while BMW usually just sends the cars on standard tires and nothing more. Would you rather they don't run BMW's at the event because of this? This is straight from their M240i run in 2023 where they acknowledge the M240i was faster than the RS3 at VIR with equal tires.

https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...ning-lap-2023/



If you have ever actually taken the time to read one of these from front to back you would know they put lot of emphasis on tires and the advantages some vehicles gain from using stickier compounds. What a reader gets out of these times is really up the the sensibilities of the reader. Any sensible reader could basically surmise that a base M2 is essentially as fast around VIR as the very top spec Nissan Z.

Agreed.

Regardless of the time, nothing points to the result being an aberration as it is pretty consistent with other track tests ie similar to the NISMO and behind the Dark Horse HP.

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by See5

Agreed.

Regardless of the time, nothing points to the result being an aberration as it is pretty consistent with other track tests ie similar to the NISMO and behind the Dark Horse HP.

Also it's considerably quicker than the last M2 Competition and this isn't even a Competition model. Some of you are getting a little bent out of shape with it coming just behind a maxed out Z car when the upcoming Competition will easily trounce it.