Quote:
Originally Posted by afadeev
Fair observations. M4 is, in many ways, a cheaper 911.
If I was in a market for an M4, I would have seriously considered ponying up for a Carrera S.
If cash flow delta impact and douche-Porsche guy cliche were not a consideration. Not that BMW ownership doesn't come with its own set of (negative) pre-conceptions, but Porsche takes it to whole new level.
Alas, I need 4 doors (kids in the back), and find M3 just about the perfect vehicle for the part.
I also test-drive M2 on track last year, and found it very comparable to an M3. However, the interior space was much tighter, and interior quality was a step down. No 4 door == no sale for me.
Other than that, "M2 is ALMOST like the M4 but cheaper".
That's not a put down. It's how it is.
Now if M2 CS with S55 motor comes out, and that car is still priced below the M4, then THAT would be something special!
M3 certainly is.
My wife loves it too!
a
|
Since l wrote that I've now driven M3 and M4 ZCP with full leather interior on a track. It's a sweet car no doubt! I want one for sure but the cost would be twice as much as the M2 is costing me. Is it twice the car?
To me the full leather interior is what makes the big difference. An M3/M4 without the leather dash isn't really that much nicer than the M2. I've owned several 3- and 4- series and the M2 didn't underwhelm me and I didn't really get what you meant until I tried the full leather ones. Yes the Merino is nicer to touch than the Dakota but it's not that big of a deal for me.
I don't really think that you buy an M2 to be quicker around a track than a Civic Type R. It's really different things. The Honda is hideous and have this ricer image. The M2 is RWD and gives you a completely different experience.
Btw, the only Ring times I trust is from the german Auto Motor and Sport's Supertest.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/s...-10888778.html
Those records you see from FWD cars are not being set with production cars... Different tires alone will make a huge difference.
Nurburgring supertest times:
M4: 7.52 min
M2: 8.01 min
Focus RS: 8.06 min
Type R. 8.15 min
Old RS3: 8.20 min
With the M2 they only had one lap with a fully dry track and also some other problems with grease and stuff in one section. It should have done better still. Well under 8 minutes for sure.
Hockenheim supertest times:
M2: 1.12,5 min
M4: 1.12,8 min
Focus RS: 1.14,2 min
Old RS3: 1.15,4 min
Type R: 1.15,8 min
The M2 isn't really well adapted to the Nurburgring either. The chassis is too firm for the bumpy track. Around the shorter and smoother Hockenheim the M2 was faster than the M4 even.
When I drove the M4 on track I talked to one of the instructors and he told me they had raced M4 vs M2 on that track last year and it was very interesting. On the straights the M4 pulled away but in the more technical sections the M2 caught up. And like they said, going fast in a straight line isn't difficult or rewarding. Anyone can do that. The fun in racing is getting the curves right.
I'd say the M2 is excellent value for money. It's fun, it sounds good, it looks good, it's an M car...
Edit: These American cars you mention are more expensive here in Europe than they are for you and they are not really an option for most of us. It's difficult to explain but they also have a kind of bad reputation from the past. It's considered poor taste to drive american cars and they are also known for being horrible other than in a straight line (which I know isn't true anymore, but it takes some time to change a reputation).