The 'professionals' at MotorTrend can't figure out why an F22 M240i is faster than an F87 M2

[Sticky]

It's always amusing to see the big buck publications make basic mistakes and offer flawed analysis. Anyone reading BimmerBoost already knew the F22 M240i with the B58 motor is faster than the F87 M2 and its N55B30T0. This was covered two years ago, does MotorTrend not know how to Google?

Here is what perplexes MotorTrend:

At the dragstrip, we expected the M2 to leave the M240i flatfooted at the line and never look back. Our M2 has a seven-speed twin-clutch automatic with launch control and 265-width rear tires to use it: 0–60 in 4.1 seconds. By contrast, the M240i came with the standard six-speed manual and 245-width tires. Although the M2’s N55 and the M240i’s B58 engines’ horsepower vary by 30 (advantage M2), their torque ratings are identical at 369 lb-ft (at 1,450 rpm in the M2 and at 1,520 rpm in the M240i). They left the line at virtually the same rate.

A manual M240i ends up trapping higher than a dual clutch M2. MotorTrend's explanation is aerodynamics:

As the M2 began to pull ahead, it shifted 1–2 near 30 mph. The M240i’s taller gears mean it doesn’t need to shift until closer to 40, so it gained back a little and reached 60 in 4.3 seconds. And so it goes; with the M2 carrying a narrow lead until … what’s this? The M240i catches the M2 at about 70 mph, and they both cross the quarter-mile finish line in 12.9 seconds (M2 at 106.2 mph, M240i at 110.5 mph). How? Horsepower should rule, right?

Horsepower does rule you @#%@. At no point did it occur to Chris Walton of MotorTrend to look at dynographs of the cars? Maybe rather than simply accept the M2 as having more horsepower and the torque being equal actually verifying the figures? Maybe taking a look at the torque curves and how the engines differ? Is this his first day on the job?

BimmerBoost compared these motors way back in 2016. The M2's N55B30T0 has a very poor top end curve:

The B58 motor on the other hand while offering similar peak power has a much flatter curve.

The M2 having more peak torque at 2500 rpm is meaningless once shifting out of first gear. It never sees that torque figure again whereas the B58 is offering more area under the curve:

The M2 gets its advantage off the line and down low precisely because it has a lot more torque at lower rpm and a dual clutch transmission which provides a shift speed advantage.

The B58 top end design is so much stronger that past 60 it catches and passes the M2 even with the disadvantage of a manual transmission. The difference would be larger if the M240i was equipped with an automatic.

Seriously MotorTrend? Your explanation is drag coefficient? Maybe put in some effort and do your homework so you know what you're talking about?

[ND75R]

Articles like this are why I love this site.

[SeanWRT]

Sticky, do not take things for granted.

There is something very wrong with M2 their test car. M2 should do 12.5~12.7@110~112mph. Not 5mph less as they get. Their M240 time seems legit.

In stock flash, both M2 and M240/140 torque fall, not that M2 fall harder. Back to back dyno runs show they make identical power throughout the band. See the attched dynograph, red line is M2. Even a bit stronger at upper ranges.

B58 has a bigger turbo, but keep in mind that doesnt mean it's making more power at stock boost level. Only when tuned, N55 chokes at top end.

[335iCooperS]

[Sticky]

The B58 pulls up top exactly as the Dynojet graphs and test numbers say it should. Not exactly the best video though.

[Sticky]

There is something very wrong with M2 their test car. M2 should do 12.5~12.7@110~112mph. Not 5mph less as they get. Their M240 time seems legit.

There isn't. The B58 just has a better curve up top and the M2 falls off hard.

Regardless, there is no difference in power between the motors but where that power is. MotorTrend didn't do any research and it is sloppy/lazy journalism.

In stock flash, both M2 and M240/140 torque fall, not that M2 fall harder.

The M2 indeed falls off much harder. It's tuned or a big torque hit down low and runs out of turbo quickly. Plus it isn't revving as high as it's falling hard by 6500 rpm while the B58 keeps going:



The B58 power curve holds better toward redline and actually is pretty flat past 5000 rpm:

B58 has a bigger turbo, but keep in mind that doesnt mean it's making more power at stock boost level. Only when tuned, N55 chokes at top end.

The Evolve graph I can't explain but I've seen graphs from them that show the S55 motor not being underrated when it clearly is. I attribute it to the Dyno Dynamics settings.

The Dynojet graphs are accurate and explain what happens and why. The test numbers do as well. The top end is why the B58 pulls:

[SeanWRT]

Sticky,

Appreciate many if not all of your insight and in-depth analysis all along, but apparently you are stereotyping things on this one. I am speaking with facts.

The M2 test car trapping 106 is a clear indication of something going very very wrong. 106 is more of the M235 time easily. Numerous magazine tests and YouTube dependent tests show M2 is a 110-113MPH car, a very proven fact. I myself and a lot of local forks do extensive instrument 100-200kph test on M2 and M140/240. M2 sees 10.5~10.8 constantly, M140/240 NEVER EVER see sub 11. Above 130mph could be different story, as drag plays more there. I try not provide 1/4(0-402m) mile and 0-62(0-100kph) times as traction counts there.

BTW, I think few people around globe have done more acceleration instrument tests on M2 and M140/240 than we did in past 18 months.

I have to repeat, in STOCK flash, M2 N55 is equaling to if not a bit stronger than M140/240 at FULL REV RANGE. MotorTrend "professionals" indeed know less than they should, but they got one thing correct - high speed DRAG matters. That's even why M2 stop pulling away from M240 from 3rd gear on.

That being said, N55 tiny turbo does choke and can't take any more than M2 stock load. Don't you see the fact that M2 stock flash apply MORE load than B58@M140/240? Log it and see for yourself. Of course, when tuned, B58 responds way better up top, that's what you mistake stock to stock comparison for. Go a little deeper and see truth please

[Sticky]

Appreciate many if not all of your insight and in-depth analysis all along, but apparently you are stereotyping things on this one. I am speaking with facts.

The M2 test car trapping 106 is a clear indication of something going very very wrong. 106 is more of the M235 time easily.

Thanks for the kind words but you should know conditions vary.

An M2 trapping 106 is hardly an indication of something being wrong with it. Especially considering if there was BMW would have supplied another test car as they were contacted during this test.

The M2 just isn't fast. MotorTrend got a 107 with the 6-speed don't forget and that's a GPS time.

Numerous magazine tests and YouTube dependent tests show M2 is a 110-113MPH car, a very proven fact.

I've seen 10 second C6 Z06 slips. That doesn't mean the Z06 is a 10-second car everywhere and in all conditions.

Show me some actual slips where the M2 runs 113 stock? I'll spare you the trouble, you can't. Fact.

I have to repeat, in STOCK flash, M2 N55 is equaling to if not a bit stronger than M140/240 at FULL REV RANGE.

Car and Driver's numbers disagree as does Autotop.nl's testing. The Dynojet numbers further support the B58 top end being stronger.

Of course, when tuned, B58 responds way better up top, that's what you mistake stock to stock comparison for. Go a little deeper and see truth please

I'm sorry, but saying Car and Driver's M2 is broken is not an answer. You're ignoring their data because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I'm more than willing to dig deeper but everything I've seen supports my point. Even my butt dyno agrees after a ride in VF's Stage 2 M2 and I saw their dyno numbers in-house for the car.

The B58 just has a better top end and flatter torque curve.

[Sticky]

Numerous magazine tests and YouTube dependent tests show M2 is a 110-113MPH car

2016 BMW M2 (Pre-Production Spec)
BASE PRICE	$52,695
PRICE AS TESTED	N/A
VEHICLE LAYOUT	Front-engine, RWD, 4-pass, 2-door coupe
ENGINE	3.0L/365-hp/343-lb-ft turbo DOHC 24-valve I-6
TRANSMISSION	6-speed manual
CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST)	3,411 lb (52/48%)
WHEELBASE	106.0 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT	176.2 x 73.0 x 55.5 in
0-60 MPH	4.2 sec
QUARTER MILE	12.8 sec @ 107.5 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH	107 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION	1.01 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT	24.1 sec @ 0.82 g (avg)
EPA CITY/HWY/COMB	18-20/26-27/21-23 mpg
ENERGY CONSUMPTION	169-187/125-130 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB	0.86-0.93 lb/mile

[Sticky]

Numerous magazine tests and YouTube dependent tests show M2 is a 110-113MPH

12.8 @ 110:

[Sticky]

Numerous magazine tests and YouTube dependent tests show M2 is a 110-113MPH

Those were manuals so here is one at ATCO (super fast strip) but not sure of the trans running 13.5 @ 111 with the trap inflated by tirespin:

[Sticky]

Here are Car and Driver's M240i numbers:

Zero to 60 mph: 4.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.3 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 18.3 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 27.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.7 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.7 sec @ 111 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 155 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 155 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.94 g

Look at 0-150. 27.8 seconds. Now compare to the M2 DCT below.

Now their M2 DCT numbers: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...rm-test-review

PERFORMANCE: NEW
Zero to 60 mph: 4.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.2 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 19.1 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 30.2 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.5 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.5 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.7 sec @ 110 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 163 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 152 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.00 g

@SeanWRT I doubt Car and Driver had a broken M2 as well The 0-130 and 0-150 numbers are quicker for the M240i and its trap speed is faster. It aligns with the Dynojet graphs I provided.

These are all facts and all research I've done by digging deeper as you suggested.

[335iCooperS]

Why is it quicker till 100 mph? Tires, the DCT transmission, weight difference?

[Sticky]

Why is it quicker till 100 mph? Tires, the DCT transmission, weight difference?

DCT and torque down low.

Keep in mind at higher speeds you stay in gear longer. So, the M2 has the advantage off the line until about 100 where the B58 is starting to pull as all the data shows us.

[335iCooperS]

Thanks!

B58 looks to be a great improvment over the N55. On YouTube there are some videos of an m240i with (older) jb4 firmware destroying an s65 and edging out an s55. Cant wait to see what the engine can do when the fuel cap is removed.

[Sticky]

B58 looks to be a great improvment over the N55.

That it is.

[Daleb]

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ll-test-review

Car and driver have the manual m2 running 12.7 @113mph and the DCT 12.5 @113mph.

107mph is low, my m135i would trap that stock. 100-200kph is around 13.5s. From the vbox data I have and seen the m2 and m240 are very similar in trap and 100-200kph. 110-113mph and 10.5-11s 100-200kph.

There are some large variations for the M2 in the tests I’ve seen by magazines etc and it’s hard to explain why without all the facts. Maybe fuel quality? I prefer to see enthusiasts data as they tend to know how to get the best from their car.

From a tuned perspective MHD have already done a 7.8 100-200kph with an ewg m135i, stock fuel system, stock turbo and e20 fuel. The m2 has more head room turbo wise and is fuel limited before turbo so there’s more to be had with supplementary fuelling. I believe the quickest stock turbo b58 100-200kph is 7.6s on jb4 and meth. I’m sure this will drop as tuning progresses on the platform.

[SeanWRT]

@Daleb, you got it right.

M2 is inconsistent due to its factory tuning strategy. Turbo is on its efficiency edge in BMW's book, so DME is programed to be super sensitive to IAT and soft knock. If you log and compare, you'll see more timing correction than other N55 variants. On colder days, M2 is considerably stronger.

One more thing, if you put a M2 and a M4 base on same dyno same day, whp difference was "only" 50~60whp (Sticky you decide how many whp you want to believe M4 puts down) and M2 power peaks at 6k~6k3 stock on dyno, not falling any harder than B58. Someone in the US did that and I did that too in Asia. Sticky isn't that into this platform it's understandable he didnt see that.

BUT:
It felt to me Sticky was only putting on what "fit his narrative". His mind was fixed by all these hurrah on B58 tuning potential which is nothing other than a better turbo. He was so blinded that even thought 106mph is nothing wrong with a M2. That's when I stopped posting, because I'm really no debate material.

[zinner]

Articles like this are why I love this site.

I am here for the nudie pics

[zinner]

That it is.

I am not sure where great improvement is called for. This entire thread just shows that a B58 and N55 2 series are neck and neck. Maybe it's an iterative improvement? The Air to Water intercooler is an improvement, not sure what else is. The turbo is more more skews to the higher end? ? ?

[Terry@BMS]

I guess no one informed them B58 > N55?

[335e92tx]

Another set of CD results from a 4/29 test of a 2016 m2 auto.

show 0-100 in 9.6
0-130 in 18.3 and 12.5 at 113