Photography Courtesy BMW
I bet it is a hoot to drive!
Before we all descend into madness discussing the new M2’s looks, let’s talk numbers.
The all-new BMW M2 comes powered by a 3.0-liter, twin-turbo inline-six good for 453 horsepower at 6250 rpm and 406 lb.-ft. of torque at 2650-5870 rpm.
A six-speed manual comes standard, though buyers can opt for an eight-speed automatic.
Measuring in at roughly 180 inches long, 74 inches wide and 55 inches tall, the new M2 weighs in at 3814 pounds when equipped with the manual gearbox. (Add 53 pounds for the auto box.)
As far as wheels and tires, the BMW is fitted with 9.5 x 19-inch wheels up front and 10.5 x 20-inch wheels out back shod in 275/35 ZR19 and 285/30 ZR20 tires, respectively.
BMW says the new car will only take 3.9 seconds to reach 60 mph from a standstill when equipped with the auto, or 4.1 seconds if you stick with the manual.
Starting price for all this? $62,200–plus a $995 destination and handling fee, of course.
Now that all that is out of the way, we’ll let you discuss aesthetics.
And for your viewing pleasure, here’s the spec sheet plus standard equipment and options:
Major Standard Equipment:
Optional Equipment Packages:
Standalone Options:
Exterior Paints:
Interior Upholsteries:
Interior Trims:
I bet it is a hoot to drive!
Well the kidneys are smaller so that's cool. And the red is nice. Wait, do I spy box flares?!
It looks like a baby F06 6 series
What's not to like?
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:What's not to like?
"the new M2 weighs in at 3814 pounds". 
It's basically as big or bigger than an e92 M3 in every dimension. Actually, it's almost as big as a new Mustang.
CAinCA said:Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:What's not to like?
"the new M2 weighs in at 3814 pounds".
It's basically as big or bigger than an e92 M3 in every dimension. Actually, it's almost as big as a new Mustang.
So, its a German Mustang GT.. Another one to watch out for at and cars and coffee events.
So it's under 4000lbs...
...until I get in the driver seat, lol.
One of the best looking cars BMW has put out in a decade or more. Liking the color too!
I actually like it.
Butnas mentioned, definitely put on a bit more than the freshman 15.
Yeah it's a heckuva car and I dig the flares, but it weighs more than an E39 M5
BlueInGreen - Jon said:So it's under 4000lbs...
...until I get in the driver seat, lol.
I'm right there with you brother.
At least they got the wheel arches right...
STM317 said:At least they got the wheel arches right...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I think the flat front flare looks like a Nissan and not in a good way.
I do like box flares, and the grille is smaller than an M3/M4. So I guess that's nice...
I'd like to see it in another color. In different photos, the flares either look huge, or barely noticeable.
That is less than 200 lbs lighter than my cls550. I do like the looks of it!!!
I'm surprised it's "only" 453hp. I'm sure it's under rated and a tune adds 100hp but still
I'm surprised it's "only" 453hp. I'm sure it's under rated and a tune adds 100hp but still
CAinCA said:"the new M2 weighs in at 3814 pounds".
The curb weight of my 1961 Pontiac Bonneville was listed at 3810 pounds. I know modern cars are more 'dense' with crash protection, electronics, etc. but that's just crazy.
BlueInGreen - Jon said:So it's under 4000lbs...
...until I get in the driver seat, lol.
Same, and speaking of us... uh.. larger folks. If these are the only seats available:
...then that's gonna be a "no" from me, dawg.
The current lightest weight BMW M-car weights more than my 1972 El Camino. And it doesn't even have batteries to blame. Yikes.
Nose isn't nearly as hideous as the M3/4 but it's far from pleasing esthetically. 3800lbs is a huge porker. I'd still go with the last gen M2 comp
Love the looks!! Weight is crazy. Does indirect charge air cooling mean an air to liquid intercooler? Only newer BMW turbo motor I am somewhat familiar with is the 2.0 4 cylinder. Both of them we’ve had were air to air. Less post turbo plumbing volume decreases lag, but liquid to air adds even more weight...
I like the flare and general shape, but some of the details...yikes. Did they forget the grille mesh in the front openings? And the outboard rear openings/styling is a little too transformers/Civic Type R for my taste. But that's coming from someone who thinks the E46/E39 were where BMW peaked with styling:
Does it have a dipstick?
Will it drip oil on its serpentine belt out of the oil filter housing?
Will it force feed itself that belt through the front seal if it fails?
In reply to jgrewe :
No, those are old and outdated failures. This model will include the latest in modern failures, completely different from those that came before (except in terms of cost to repair and catastrophic outcomes if ignored).
jgrewe said:Does it have a dipstick?
Will it drip oil on its serpentine belt out of the oil filter housing?
Will it force feed itself that belt through the front seal if it fails?
To be fair, you could ask those same questions of a lot of modern cars. Late model Volvos come to mind
600 lbs. heavier than my Z4m seems a large penalty for having two seats that will probably seldom be used. I'd love that engine in my car, though (you can buy a supercharger kit that puts the original S54 engine up there, but supercharging an engine with 11.5 compression just seems somehow unnatural to me....)
In reply to CAinCA :
That's what I took away from the article, as well. Why do modern cars weigh so much?
She is definitely chunky...
3800lbs????? Eff that.
Cars have become monstrous pigs in the pursuit of safety and technological bells and whistles.
In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
The excessive weight and the aesthetics to start...
jgrewe said:Does it have a dipstick?
Will it drip oil on its serpentine belt out of the oil filter housing?
Will it force feed itself that belt through the front seal if it fails?
I haven't heard anything about the B/S58 engines having the same failures as the N54/55 engines.
What a pig. My wife's Forester is 400 lbs less.
At 2500# and change I'll keep throwing my Mini Cooper around and loving life; good luck if you throw that sow around and it gets away from you 
Back in the day - way back- my Dad had a '49 4-door Buick Roadmaster that was huge, even then.
IIRC it was 'only' 4,000 lbs - 2 tons.
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:Same, and speaking of us... uh.. larger folks. If these are the only seats available:
...then that's gonna be a "no" from me, dawg.
Crap! Those look, uh, comfortable. That nutbuster wedgy thingy will be real comfortable on long trips. 
Nowhere to go but up considering how butt ugly the new m3/m4 is so I guess they got that going for them! I think this is aimed more at the techie parking in garages in NYC and not the GRM tracking with a group of Porsches like BMW's used to be about.
stonebreaker said:In reply to CAinCA :
That's what I took away from the article, as well. Why do modern cars weigh so much?
I don't think you keep 4-500hp cool, contained, and "reliable" in an oem context while keeping the weight down.
But if it didn't weigh 4000lbs you wouldn't need that much oomph to be quick so... meh.
CAinCA said:Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:Same, and speaking of us... uh.. larger folks. If these are the only seats available:
...then that's gonna be a "no" from me, dawg.
Crap! Those look, uh, comfortable. That nutbuster wedgy thingy will be real comfortable on long trips.
Those seats are part of the carbon package. The nut-tuck is part of the ingress/egress procedure.
I miss tire sidewalls. I also miss square setups that you can rotate easily.
I guess if you're dropping this sort of coin on a car, you're probably ok dropping a bit more to have somebody else mess with your tires.
Cactus said:I miss tire sidewalls. I also miss square setups that you can rotate easily.
I guess if you're dropping this sort of coin on a car, you're probably ok dropping a bit more to have somebody else mess with your tires.
M cars haven't had square setups since the '95 M3, IIRC
z31maniac said:Cactus said:I miss tire sidewalls. I also miss square setups that you can rotate easily.
I guess if you're dropping this sort of coin on a car, you're probably ok dropping a bit more to have somebody else mess with your tires.
M cars haven't had square setups since the '95 M3, IIRC
'96 
Slippery said:z31maniac said:Cactus said:I miss tire sidewalls. I also miss square setups that you can rotate easily.
I guess if you're dropping this sort of coin on a car, you're probably ok dropping a bit more to have somebody else mess with your tires.
M cars haven't had square setups since the '95 M3, IIRC
'96
I'll bet you a nice steak dinner. 
'95 was 235/40/17 at all 4 corners.
'96 (when it changed to the S52 and OBD-II) it went to 225/45/17, and 245/40/17 F/R.
Oddly, to a lot of us, the 90s were when everything went to E36 M3.
Pun intended.
You'll need to log in to post. Log in
