M2 Vs GT-PP

[valentinoamoro]

Given the M235i is more expensive (and much slower) than the GT-PP, its not unreasonable to expect the M2 to be a better competitor.

It's 200 pounds lighter (3500 for manual Vs 3700 for manual PP, esp with exhaust and wheels). The M2 is probably more stiff in race mode stock, but with the BMR/Steeda/FRPP mods and a tune (perhaps not even needed) and wider wheels I think the GT might be faster on the track and strip. It may even be faster stock.

I was expecting the M2 to have stated 390 HP and be 3300 pounds, not 360HP, same engine (uptuned) as M235i and 3500 pounds! Even if BMW underates this and actual output is 390, we GT owners should probably be competitive. BMW is quoting 4.4 seconds for the run to 60, which should be in the ball part of the GT with stock rubber etc.

This thing is probably going to cost 53K at least..That doesnt account for costs of ownership after the warranty runs out :-)

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/13/2016-bmw-m2-official-photos/#slide-3661928

Sponsored

 

[Dave2013M3]

Given the M235i is more expensive (and much slower) than the GT-PP, its not unreasonable to expect the M2 to be a better competitor.

It's 200 pounds lighter (3500 for manual Vs 3700 for manual PP, esp with exhaust and wheels). The M2 is probably more stiff in race mode stock, but with the BMR/Steeda/FRPP mods and a tune (perhaps not even needed) and wider wheels I think the GT might be faster on the track and strip. It may even be faster stock.

I was expecting the M2 to have stated 390 HP and be 3300 pounds, not 360HP, same engine (uptuned) as M235i and 3500 pounds! Even if BMW underates this and actual output is 390, we GT owners should probably be competitive. BMW is quoting 4.4 seconds for the run to 60, which should be in the ball part of the GT with stock rubber etc.

This thing is probably going to cost 53K at least..That doesnt account for costs of ownership after the warranty runs out :-)

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/13/2016-bmw-m2-official-photos/#slide-3661928

BMW underrates the 0-60 times by quite a bit. They quoted 4.7 for the E92 M3 and they have been recorded to run 3.9 with DCT and 4.1 with 6MT. Also BMW rates the DCT M2 @ 4.2...I think the M2 will smoke a GT PP.

Dave

 

[ForTehNguyen]

should be suspicious about the weights. Last time BMW misled the hell out of people with M3/M4 weights

 

[ihc95]

Hate to say this but an M2 will destory a GTPP at the track and a straight line. Realistically, both cars are putting down ~370whp but the M2 has about a 300lb weight advantage, (much?) better suspension tuning, smaller footprint, better tires, available DCT, etc.

Of course the GT350 has a performance advantage over the M2, but it is still a more fit competitor than a GTPP imo.

 

[valentinoamoro]

Hate to say this but an M2 will destory a GTPP at the track and a straight line. Realistically, both cars are putting down ~370whp but the M2 has about a 300lb weight advantage, (much?) better suspension tuning, smaller footprint, better tires, available DCT, etc.

Of course the GT350 has a performance advantage over the M2, but it is still a more fit competitor than a GTPP imo.

The time around VIR for the M235i is 3:07.2, and, the Mustang GT-PP is 2+ seconds faster - Car and Driver Lightning Lap 2015 and 2014.

This is with the M235i equipped with the vastly better Michelin PSS and a faster 8 speed auto (vs 6 speed manual for the GT), relevant as I would compare manual times if possible as its a more driver oriented and this is about driving!

Moving onto the M2, its unlikely to beat the M4, which pulled a 5 second lead over the GT. Infact, its slower than the M4 around the ring by quite a bit. Infact, its lap times seems slower than a bunch of hot hatches.
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/14/bmw-m2-nurburgring-time-video/

So we can probably expect a time similar to the GT (or +2 seconds) at VIR. This is with the GT-PP STOCK with its crappy tires and assuming the M2 is manual. I wont get into the mod game which really is a matter of how much money one is willing to throw at it and honestly, modded cars can be incredibly faster/better/more involving or worse than OEM depending on the model, the aftermarket and the owners choices. That said, I think the BMR guys have mentioned knocking a lot of time off the stock GT-PP with suspension and tire mods itself, and I am inclined to believe that is easily possible as Ford leaves a lot on the table (look at the boat anchor wheels, crappy rubber, super heavy exhaust, etc).

Let the bench racing commence!

BMW underrates the 0-60 times by quite a bit. They quoted 4.7 for the E92 M3 and they have been recorded to run 3.9 with DCT and 4.1 with 6MT. Also BMW rates the DCT M2 @ 4.2...I think the M2 will smoke a GT PP.

Dave

Dave, I love the E92 M3 but any 6MT's pushing 4.1 are the anomalies, a product of the manufacturing process called 'stacking'. They are nowhere near as quick feeling in real life and def are in the 4.4-4.8 range. Real (average times, reasonable times) 3.9-4.1 second cars (like the C7 Corvette) feel much faster. The E92 is similar speed wise to the S550 GT, and def not as torquey. This is a shootout with the first gen Coyote.

[ame]
[ame]

Not fully stock here but with a few slicks etc GT's have also pulled incredible times, but these are not the norm.
http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9950

 

[Dave2013M3]

The time around VIR for the M235i is 3:07.2, and, the Mustang GT-PP is 2+ seconds faster - Car and Driver Lightning Lap 2015 and 2014.

This is with the M235i equipped with the vastly better Michelin PSS and a faster 8 speed auto (vs 6 speed manual for the GT), relevant as I would compare manual times if possible as its a more driver oriented and this is about driving!

Moving onto the M2, its unlikely to beat the M4, which pulled a 5 second lead over the GT. Infact, its slower than the M4 around the ring by quite a bit. Infact, its lap times seems slower than a bunch of hot hatches.
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/14/bmw-m2-nurburgring-time-video/

So we can probably expect a time similar to the GT (or +2 seconds) at VIR. This is with the GT-PP STOCK with its crappy tires and assuming the M2 is manual. I wont get into the mod game which really is a matter of how much money one is willing to throw at it and honestly, modded cars can be incredibly faster/better/more involving or worse than OEM depending on the model, the aftermarket and the owners choices. That said, I think the BMR guys have mentioned knocking a lot of time off the stock GT-PP with suspension and tire mods itself, and I am inclined to believe that is easily possible as Ford leaves a lot on the table (look at the boat anchor wheels, crappy rubber, super heavy exhaust, etc).

Let the bench racing commence!




Dave, I love the E92 M3 but any 6MT's pushing 4.1 are the anomalies, a product of the manufacturing process called 'stacking'. They are nowhere near as quick feeling in real life and def are in the 4.4-4.8 range. Real (average times, reasonable times) 3.9-4.1 second cars (like the C7 Corvette) feel much faster. The E92 is similar speed wise to the S550 GT, and def not as torquey. This is a shootout with the first gen Coyote.




Not fully stock here but with a few slicks etc GT's have also pulled incredible times, but these are not the norm.
http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9950

Well, to be honest the test you show are with the Conti Sportcontact 3 not the Mich PS2s or the Pirelli Pzero which the E92 M3 can come with. In that test MotorTrend even mentioned the car didn't have as much grip and the times suffered. Now for you to quote a 4.8 is laughable...as most rags have them in the 4.2-4.4 range..

Here is the latest 6MT car that Car and Driver tested back in 2012. 0-60 in 4.2.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files...mw-m3-vs-2012-mercedes-benz-c63-amg-jan12.pdf

Notice the 0-150mph times, actually destroyed the S550 times of 25.7 seconds...the M3 ran 23.9.

Here is the MT 6MT times from heavier sedan @4.2 seconds...the only rag that ever got a 4.8 is those idiots at Edmunds.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0803_2008_bmw_m3_sedan_test/specifications.html

Another point...BMW stacks but Ford doesn't? Actually I don't give a shit about 0-60...I want to see trap times and mph...this is the true benchmark.

I ran a 12.7@111mph in my E92 M3 bone stock with a crappy 2.1 60ft. time, right in line what the rags got, except for Road and Track who ran a [email protected] (this is the one that got 4.1 0-60). However, its within the ballpark..

That being all said...I stand by what I said..the M2 will be faster than the Must GT PP, especially with the DCT.

Dave

 

[RocketGuy3]

Hate to say this but an M2 will destory a GTPP at the track and a straight line. Realistically, both cars are putting down ~370whp but the M2 has about a 300lb weight advantage, (much?) better suspension tuning, smaller footprint, better tires, available DCT, etc.

Of course the GT350 has a performance advantage over the M2, but it is still a more fit competitor than a GTPP imo.

I know BMW underrates their engines sometimes, but there is no way the M2 is going to be putting down anywhere near 370 hp to the wheels from the factory...

 

[mustang_guy]

Lol bmws.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

Damn....bench racing is strong with this one....

 

[mustang_guy]

Damn....bench racing is strong with this one....

Can you pass me a beer ? Im out.

 

[mdnt]

Costs more to buy, and then costs keep going up with every High Pressure Fuel Pump and each Walnut blasting your forced to do since BMW cant fix the same problem after 8+ years. Btw i made a small fortune to these and the infamous e90 fusebox fires.

 

[mustang_guy]

How about the never ending oil filter housing gasket replacements among pages of other things i dont want to type up. :lol:

I cant wait til i get an m2 in my bay so i can laugh.

 

[valentinoamoro]

How about the never ending oil filter housing gasket replacements among pages of other things i dont want to type up. :lol:

I cant wait til i get an m2 in my bay so i can laugh.

Costs more to buy, and then costs keep going up with every High Pressure Fuel Pump and each Walnut blasting your forced to do since BMW cant fix the same problem after 8+ years. Btw i made a small fortune to these and the infamous e90 fusebox fires.

Trust me, been there. My car was reliable, but too many of my friends lost the rod bearing, VANOS etc and it was 7K for Vanos, 30K for rod bearing. Thats before the SMG which was a PoS. My car was a manual. I'm done with BMW.

 

[mustang_guy]

Bmw and reliable do not belong in the same sentence, ever. Unless you are talking about e30s and older, is just untrue.

 

[valentinoamoro]

Well, to be honest the test you show are with the Conti Sportcontact 3 not the Mich PS2s or the Pirelli Pzero which the E92 M3 can come with. In that test MotorTrend even mentioned the car didn't have as much grip and the times suffered. Now for you to quote a 4.8 is laughable...as most rags have them in the 4.2-4.4 range..

Here is the latest 6MT car that Car and Driver tested back in 2012. 0-60 in 4.2.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files...mw-m3-vs-2012-mercedes-benz-c63-amg-jan12.pdf

Notice the 0-150mph times, actually destroyed the S550 times of 25.7 seconds...the M3 ran 23.9.

Here is the MT 6MT times from heavier sedan @4.2 seconds...the only rag that ever got a 4.8 is those idiots at Edmunds.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0803_2008_bmw_m3_sedan_test/specifications.html

Another point...BMW stacks but Ford doesn't? Actually I don't give a shit about 0-60...I want to see trap times and mph...this is the true benchmark.

I ran a 12.7@111mph in my E92 M3 bone stock with a crappy 2.1 60ft. time, right in line what the rags got, except for Road and Track who ran a [email protected] (this is the one that got 4.1 0-60). However, its within the ballpark..

That being all said...I stand by what I said..the M2 will be faster than the Must GT PP, especially with the DCT.

Dave

Agreed, 0-60 is a crap measure. All I'm saying, it that the E92 M3 is def statistically in the same ball-park speed wise as the Mustang GT (all Coyote versions). To argue otherwise is splitting hairs. The Mustang GT and E92M3 have more in common from the drivers seat than the E92M3 and M4 IMHO. The E92 has quicker steering, the Mustang more shove/torque. I am very familiar with both cars, owning one and having a ton of seat time in the other. I also admit I did seriously consider a CPO lightly touched (1 y/o) E92 but went with the GT and am loving it.

A faster car (next class above in straight line speed) is the M4 (in my opinion not necessarily a better car) and Corvette C7 (killer track cars, look at they way they monster lightning lap or any track).


Manual M2 Vs GT-PP manual (which is the only version I care about) will be an interesting match for sure for me. I dont think any 'walking' will be going on.
Personally, I think the M2 will be an exciting fun car, but overpriced, horrendous to own in the long term and pretty ugly, especially the rear, rear 3/4th view and the overstyled front. I do love the side profile, while not sleek and sexy as the S550, it does service to the 2002 and the 1M coupe with the stubby profile. I am dying to drive it though, along with the GT350 and Focus RS. All get my salivating...

For the record, I am a heritage Bimmerphile (not the new stuff though!). BMW is making more extreme cars (track or lux) instead of drivers cars. Heck, they just released a AWD bimmer in the USA with a transverse engine and FWD architecture. Dont even get me started on the X6.

Moving these days to American iron as they are really releasing some enthusiast cars.

Sponsored