Article: Car and Driver lies and blatantly misrepresents BMW F87 M2 Competition acceleration compared to the standard M2 destroying its own credibility

[Sticky]

There is a reason car magazines are losing readers. For one, the internet often brings with it information more quickly and accurately. Magazines and traditional media losing readership often resort to click bait titles and misrepresentation to get views.

That is exactly what Joey Capparella and David Beard did here:

The 2019 BMW M2 Competition Doesn't Perform Any Better, but We're Still Enthralled

Munich's updated coupe can't beat its predecessor's numbers, but we love it regardless.

2019 M2 - More Power, Same Acceleration

Not one, but two editors contributed to that lie. You would think writing for Car and Driver would bring some pride with it or that Car and Driver would hire writers that would not need to sensationalize in order to get views. Wrong.

The new M2 Competition is a huge step up in performance over the standard M2. The change to the S55 inline-6 from the N55B30T0 (which is not even a true M motor) is a massive one for performance.

Car and Driver states the reason for the change is emissions. Huh? Based on what? The N55 is turbocharged. It has the exact same bore x stroke. Alpina continues to sell it today. The reason is not emissions.

The reason is the B58 is in production and the performance game stepped up considerably (*cough* RS3 *cough*). The whole reason the M2 did not get the S55 to begin with was because BMW did not want to upset their artificial hierarchy and have a cheaper M car outperform the M3 and M4.

The N55B30T0 I am sorry to say stinks. Even some basic research by Car and Driver's editors would tell them the N55 torque curve is poor and the non-M B58 motor outperforms it. Google would point Car and Driver to several articles showing the N55B30T0 being outperformed including BimmerBoost's own.

If the M240i is smoking the M2, shouldn't that tell Car and Driver something? Are they incapable of doing basic research such as looking at 1/4 mile figures or dyno graphs?

It's not hard guys:

B58

N55B30T0

If the M240i is outperforming the M2 at least in acceleration and the dynographs show the B58 has a stronger top end curve and that the M2 turbo quickly runs out of steam, how exactly is the even stronger S55 not providing a performance benefit? What is leading Car and Driver to this conclusion?

This:

At our test track in Michigan, though, the additional power did not produce much of a gain in straight-line acceleration. An M2 Competition with the optional DCT automatic transmission we tested couldn't improve on its predecessor's zero-to-60-mph time of 4.0 seconds flat and barely beat it in the quarter-mile, returning a 12.4-second pass at 116 mph, improvements of 0.1 second and 3 mph.

I have some shocking news for Car and Driver but 0-60 sprints are traction limited especially in a rear wheel drive application. Hold onto your hats boys but you can have a motor with more power and torque deliver the exact same 0-60 sprint as a motor with less power and torque because that newfound power is harder to put down.

Here is where things get really crazy. Elapsed time in the 1/4 mile is based off of traction. The better the launch, the lower the 60 foot time, and the quicker the 1/4 mile time will be. That means a car which launches better than on a previous run and runs a few tenths quicker time did not suddenly gain more power. It gained traction.

Now, obviously this is high level car testing stuff that the people Car and Driver employs can not be bothered to learn. Who can blame two of their writers for not understanding these concepts? They must be really busy at Car and Driver as they did not even have the time to check their own performance testing for the M2 from 2018:

Not only did they do a full test when new but after 40,000 miles. I know, I know, when you see that 0-60 of 4.3 seconds for the 40k mile test car versus the 4.1 when new that obviously means the car lost performance. The tires being worn, a worse launch surface, or warmer weather certainly could not play into it.

Something odd happens though when you look at the 0-130 sprint. The 40,000 mile test car gets there faster despite the slower 0-60. What kind of shenanigans are we witnessing? Witchcraft? Or maybe it is that a motor broken in with some miles on it actually opens up a bit?

So Car and Driver has all these data points and yet when they get their set of figures for the M2 Competition they actually have the gall to say the M2 Competition offers the same acceleration?

The new M2 Competition gets to 130 miles per hour in 15.9 seconds or 3.2 seconds quicker than the standard M2 they tested. It is almost as if the 0-60 figure suddenly means nothing.

What about the 1/4 mile trap speeds? The M2 Competition hits 116 mph a full 6 miles per hour higher than the M2 they tested. It is four miles per hour higher than the 40,000 mile variant they tested. That is a massive gain for what is only supposed to be 40 crank horsepower.

Car and Driver can not even get its own story straight. In their previous M2 test article (which they cherry picked while ignoring their other M2 test data in order to misrepresent the story) 0.2 seconds is huge:

An M2 equipped with the dual-clutch automatic transmission leads the way to 60 mph and through the quarter-mile by a significant 0.2 second.

They said it. 0.2 seconds is significant. Well then why in the hell is the 5-60 rolling start of 4.3 seconds which is 0.4 seconds quicker or twice as fast as the time Car and Driver already stated as significant suddenly... insignificant?

Did math change? Are numbers that used to mean something meaning something else entirely in 2019?

For clarification, BimmerBoost e-mailed MIT which is better known as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

Is 116 the same number as 110? Is 116 the same number as 112? Are 116, 112, and 110 the same numbers?

Those are all different numbers

There you have it folks! The M2 Competition is not offering the same acceleration as a 116 mile per hour trap speed that Car and Driver recorded themselves significantly exceeds the 112 and 110 mile per hour trap speeds they also recorded themselves.

Our same email sent to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory was not answered for some reason.

Despite NASA not weighing in, it seems clear Car and Driver lied and misrepresented the M2 Competition's performance for click-bait. Furthermore, the main significance in the switch of the motor is not just stock performance but aftermarket performance.

Obviously factoring in the aftermarket would cause Joey Capparella and David Beard's heads to explode but BimmerBoost fortunately already covered this topic.

This is the M2 Competition overlaid with the M2:

Shockingly, not the same. As a matter of fact, the M2 needs a tune to get to where the M2 Competition's top end is stock:

Now what happens when you tune the M2 Competition? And how does it look compared to a standard S55 from an F82 M4?

Yep, it blows the tuned M2 away and even the big brother M4 as BMW artificially limited the top end power of the M2 Competition to stop it from crushing its big brothers. Car and Driver could not be bothered to do this research but if you want more proof BimmerBoost has yet another article showing you where BMW detuned the M2 Competition.

Not only is the M2 Competition stronger than the standard M2 by a significant amount, the S55 offers far more headroom. Car and Driver is so wrong you can not help but laugh at their ignorance.

Given all the hardware, equipment, and performance bundled into this refreshed bite-size coupe, the upcharge seems worth it, but the fact that the Competition model doesn’t perform measurably better than before is disappointing.

If I were Joey Capparella and David Bear, I'd resign. I would be embarrassed to put my name on the garbage they called an article. Maybe BuzzFeed is hiring?

If I were BMW, I'd demand a retraction. If I were Car and Driver, I would just keep publishing this level of work.

It only helps BimmerBoost.

[amclint]

Wow that's pretty crazy they can't even point out how big a difference the trap speed is, I always hated their focus on 0-60 but this is a new low.

[Sticky]

Wow that's pretty crazy they can't even point out how big a difference the trap speed is, I always hated their focus on 0-60 but this is a new low.

I'm not sure if they think their readers are this stupid or they are just this bad. Maybe both.

[Eleventeen]

I’m sure Car Wow is hiring...

[Sticky]

I’m sure Car Wow is hiring...

I mean yeah that is where you would expect this but Car and Driver after so many decades? Pathetic

[ND75R]

Holy $#@! the MIT part was banter. Great write up. Tripe article.

[Sticky2]

Holy $#@! the MIT part was banter. Great write up. Tripe article.

I had fun with it. Retards on reddit were defending Car And Driver saying so what if they got the numbers a bit wrong as they’re close enough. Seriously? That’s the whole point of testing. To get the right numbers to reference. Also 6 miles per hour of trap speed isn’t freaking close.

It is unbelievable how stupid people are.

[SeanWRT]

In this particular case (M2C vs M2), C/D has no excuse, M2C excels big time power delivery wise. They just don't know what they're doing.

But in general, BoostAddict just has been too obsessed about top end power. Whil in fact, power responsiveness (power on tap with NA, fast spool turbo & etc) makes a far better driving experience. And in real world, power on tap + traction have a better chance to win than laggy big power.

[Sticky2]

In this particular case (M2C vs M2), C/D has no excuse, M2C excels big time acceleration wise. They just don't know what they're doing.

But in general, BoostAddict just has been too obsessed about top end power. But responsiveness (power on tap with NA, fast spool turbo & etc) makes a far better driving experience (than laggy and strong top end). And in real world, power on tap + traction have a better chance to win than laggy big power.

You’re accusing someone who only bought M cars with ITB’s of favoring power over response? Heh. I still bitch about the NA M motors and their throttle response.

The article mentions 5-60 numbers clearly showing the S55 has better response with more top end pull. Plus the article is about misrepresented acceleration not response.

[ND75R]

Whil in fact, power responsiveness (power on tap with NA, fast spool turbo & etc) makes a far better driving experience.

That's why I kept the modded S5. The blower spins up instantaneously and the torque shove is so fun.

[SeanWRT]

Yeah, I kinda accuse you of that.

80% of this site is filled with your strong opinions (which BTW we like much more often than not). And owning NA M car at a time doesn't change the atmosphere here of strong favor towards top end power.

800+ 1000+ whp build pop up every now and then, but we don't see such thing as "making 700+whp with full torque from just 2k5!" very often.

Also, I've said it first and foremost, in this M2C vs M2 case, M2C excels everywhere, that's including responsiveness.

You’re accusing someone who only bought M cars with ITB’s of favoring power over response? Heh. I still $#@! about the NA M motors and their throttle response.

The article mentions 5-60 numbers clearly showing the S55 has better response with more top end pull. Plus the article is about misrepresented acceleration not response.

[Sticky]

Yeah, I kinda accuse you of that.

80% of this site is filled with your strong opinions (which BTW we like much more often than not). And owning NA M car at a time doesn't change the atmosphere here of strong favor towards top end power.

That's perfectly fine but you're incorrect.

On a performance tuning site, yes, you will see high horsepower builds.

800+ 1000+ whp build pop up every now and then, but we don't see such thing as "making 700+whp with full torque from just 2k5!" very often.

Really? You just saw it: https://www.boostaddict.com/content....r-wheel-torque

Right here, talking about torque down low and area under the curve: https://www.boostaddict.com/content....9-wheel-torque

What about my testing on the turbo upgrade on the 991.2? Spool improvement is mentioned: https://www.porscheboost.com/content...as-and-91-meth

I think as you're relatively new you don't now my full posting history and I'm not sure if you read the entire network or parts of it.

I am strong proponent of throttle response and area under the curve. This is why I was very critical of early M3 SC kits.

What about this article here highlighting exactly what you're talking about? https://www.bimmerboost.com/content....5-psi-of-boost

What about this one? https://www.bimmerboost.com/content....n-the-1-4-mile