[rosenbergendo]

So it has been pretty much confirmed that this S55/N55 hybrid has a diff turbo than the M235. Now it would be interesting to get the part number and see what characteristics this turbo has that would make it amenable to chipping!! Hoping for over 400hp for Stage 1 BMS tune!

[MR.]

I think it will already have 400hp on some cars BMWs are known to have a much higher hp figure. My 135i was 12% higher than stock.

MR

[///Jason]

Originally Posted by MR.

I think it will already have 400hp on some cars BMWs are known to have a much higher hp figure. My 135i was 12% higher than stock.

MR

Agreed, BMW are notorious for underselling HP. The figure is usually 12% - 14% out so expect 410 HP at crank. After my run in period I'm going to be straight on the dyno to find out for sure.

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by rosenbergendo

So it has been pretty much confirmed that this S55/N55 hybrid has a diff turbo than the M235. Now it would be interesting to get the part number and see what characteristics this turbo has that would make it amenable to chipping!! Hoping for over 400hp for Stage 1 BMS tune!

Link to the evidence on the turbo? (sans the "///Moron" who said it was a twin turbo).

[PrematureApex]

You guys have an awfully strange definition of "all but confirmed" if you're relying on the rep that said this car had twin turbos.

If they thought it had twins, of course they thought it had a "different" turbo(s) than the 235, obviously. You can't take the first part of their statement as true, when it was clear from the second part that they had no idea what the hell they were talking about.

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by PrematureApex

Link to the evidence on the turbo? (sans the "///Moron" who said it was a twin turbo).

Agree that it's not a twin turbo. It's single Twinpower structure but there has been Info that it's a different turbo, which of course is exactly what M should do right ?

It's a different world without S motors all over but it's clear that this motor has been beefed up over the N55,

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by M3 Adjuster

but there has been Info that it's a different turbo, which of course is exactly what M should do right ?

Again, link to this info?

The idiot who said it was a twin turbo is not a source for info that the turbo is different than the 235. That's horrible logic.

Again, I think it's bigger, as the 235 doesn't have a ton of headroom left in it.

That being said, the 1M had the same snails...so it's not below M to leave something like that the same if it works.

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by PrematureApex

Again, link to this info?

The idiot who said it was a twin turbo is not a source for info that the turbo is different than the 235. That's horrible logic.

Again, I think it's bigger, as the 235 doesn't have a ton of headroom left in it.

That being said, the 1M had the same snails...so it's not below M to leave something like that the same if it works.

I'm too busy but the person that mentioned it referenced that they had seen an x4 40 motor torn down ...or cutaway on the ETK for the motor

[shivaswrath]

If 0-60 is 4.1 (0-60 for M3 is 3.9), you can safely assume that it's probably floating at 400 at the wheels!

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by shivaswrath

If 0-60 is 4.1 (0-60 for M3 is 3.9), you can safely assume that it's probably floating at 400 at the wheels!

What? Where do you people come up with this stuff?

You can get down to those numbers with much less. Traction is the biggest issue, not power. You're traction limited to 60 even in the 330 whp area, let alone 400. A 350 whp rwd car doesn't get to 60 much, if any, quicker than a 400 whp rwd. A stock 235 does it in 4.3.

Now, given BMWs recent propensity to grossly under-rate their engines...I could see this thing putting down 360ish whp in stock form, meaning something close to 400 at the crank. But 400 at the wheels? They didn't underrate this engine by 100 bhp. Let's be reasonable here.

[Arcanum-UK]

You can get down to those numbers with much less. Traction is the biggest issue, not power. You're traction limited to 60 even in the 330 whp area, let alone 400. A 350 whp rwd car doesn't get to 60 much, if any, quicker than a 400 whp rwd. A stock 235 does it in 4.3.

On warm, dry and decent tarmac with stock, fresh Michelin Pilot Supersports, you have to be extremely brutal to unstick the rear tyres on the Mx35i's from a standing start. Once above 10-20MPH, in a straight line, those tyres just don't unstick in the above conditions. While being brutal is what is needed to get the best 0-60 time, I only think it's slightly traction limited and the wider tyres of the M2 will probably fix this.

The key is the tarmac you're on. I note you're from Philadelphia and I've got no idea what the road quality is like up there. I lived in Texas and California for several years and the tarmac quality is pretty poor for grip.

Viewed from another perspective, the 911 only gains about 0.1-0.2 seconds going from 2WD to 4WD so traction is unlikely to be the majority of the difference between the 4.7-seconds of the M235i and the 4.1-seconds quoted for the M2. Yes, the 911 is a different car and other factors apply, but it's a useful comparison of RWD to minimally traction limited 4WD with a similar power output as the M2.

I could believe the M2 is near 400BHP.

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by Arcanum-UK

I could believe the M2 is near 400BHP.

Of course, I think it likely is. That's not 400WHP.

The M235 has run as low as 4.3.

Even on warmed up R comps, my 350 whp 135 will spin tires through 1st gear with ease.

You certainly don't need 400 whp to run a 4.1 to 60. Not at all.

[rosenbergendo]

Really? No wheelspin. In my 235 with BMS Stage 1, and in FL heat, and on new SS, I get wheelspin all over the place with the 8AT. Launch seems to be best almost in M mode in 2nd gear b/c there is so much wheelspin in first!!

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by rosenbergendo

Really? No wheelspin. In my 235 with BMS Stage 1, and in FL heat, and on new SS, I get wheelspin all over the place with the 8AT. Launch seems to be best almost in M mode in 2nd gear b/c there is so much wheelspin in first!!

Yeah, I'm not sure what he was talking about. Just about all of these cars requiring feathering throttle at least in first after the launch.

Hence, you see so many RWD cars of different power levels huddled around the 4 second mark. Granted, some have dipped into the high 3s recently with better traction/launch control, direct-shift boxes, improved tires, etc. But the point remains.

[rosenbergendo]

Even using the finicky launch control results in basically burnout mode!!

[filet.M2c]

If the M2 puts down 360-370 whp and the turbo is indeed upgraded from the 235i then I will be extremely satisfied. The stock power would probably hold me over for 6 mo- 1 year then with tune + bolt ons this car would rip. I hope the turbo info is credible!

[Arcanum-UK]

The quality of the tarmac you're driving on makes a huge difference - Mu matters. Most of the roads I've driven on in Texas/California have such poor friction coefficient that anaemic rental cars can break traction easily. Go and drive on a well surfaced road (e.g. with Delugrip in UK/Germany) and you have to be pretty brutal to break traction for long. The 0-60 times will be set on well surfaced road.

Alternatively, as this link shows, a 350HP RWD 911 Carrera (991-series) is 0.6-seconds slower than the 400HP RWD 911 Carrera S:

http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle...-60-mph-times/

[rosenbergendo]

Our roads in Florida are some of the smoothest in the world. In my area almost all the roads are new. I get MUCH better traction in my 991 GT3. Its really all down to traction and tire patch size. The M235 has quite small rears for a tire patch of 245.

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by Arcanum-UK

Alternatively, as this link shows, a 350HP RWD 911 Carrera (991-series) is 0.6-seconds slower than the 400HP RWD 911 Carrera S:

http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle...-60-mph-times/

What is that showing? That's a 300 whp 911, not a 350 whp one. Big difference. Again, cars start to become traction limited around the 400 bhp mark. And what transmissions do those cars have? You just cherry-picked two numbers off that huge list, not knowing anything about the cars. Moreover, no one said a 350 bhp car was traction limited to 60. Ever.

Of course traction matters. We're talking about ideal conditions numbers.

Once again, it's diminishing returns when it comes to 0-60 with RWD cars these days. You can't argue against that. Cars simply become traction limited. A couple tenths here and there, for tires, better TC, better transmissions, etc.

It is a plain fact that 50 more HP in a 200 bhp car is going to lower the 0-60 time more than 50 more HP in a 400 bhp car. There's simply only so much power you can put down with a given size tire. Hence, real differences in power show up not in 0-60 times, but in 0-100, 130, etc.

What are you even arguing anyway? You're supporting the guy that posted, because the M2 runs 0-60 in 4.1 seconds, it must be putting down 400 whp? That's ridiculous.

[Arcanum-UK]

I'm arguing against the point that traction limitations are the primary problem that needs to be overcome to achieve a lower 0-60 time for cars in the M235i/M2 spectrum. The 0-60 example of 911 was just an example to point out that power still matters even in the 300-400 range. Traction is a factor, but there's no way that fixing that will take a 4.7-second 0-60 time of the M235i down to 4.1.

I'm bored of your dismissive and know-it-all approach. You've made minimal attempt to provide any evidence to back up your position, use examples like 50HP makes more of a difference in a 200HP vs 400HP car (obvious, so what) and you're clearly deluded if you think an M235i can run 0-60 in 4.3-seconds. Pointing out WHP of the 911 is irrelevant as the HP is in the same spectrum as the M235i/M2.

As for the poster above, if you're rich enough to afford a 911 GT3, you are hopefully clever enough to educate yourself about the difference between a smooth road and friction coefficients.

I'm not even sure why I'm arguing as 0-60 is not relevant in a DD or trackdays and is not why most of us buy these cars. So, whatever, have a nice day to you both.

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by Arcanum-UK

I'm arguing against the point that traction limitations are the primary problem that needs to be overcome to achieve a lower 0-60 time for cars in the M235i/M2 spectrum. The 0-60 example of 911 was just an example to point out that power still matters even in the 300-400 range. Traction is a factor, but there's no way that fixing that will take a 4.7-second 0-60 time of the M235i down to 4.1.

I'm bored of your dismissive and know-it-all approach. You've made minimal attempt to provide any evidence to back up your position, use examples like 50HP makes more of a difference in a 200HP vs 400HP car (obvious, so what) and you're clearly deluded if you think an M235i can run 0-60 in 4.3-seconds. Pointing out WHP of the 911 is irrelevant as the HP is in the same spectrum as the M235i/M2.

As for the poster above, if you're rich enough to afford a 911 GT3, you are hopefully clever enough to educate yourself about the difference between a smooth road and friction coefficients.

I'm not even sure why I'm arguing as 0-60 is not relevant in a DD or trackdays and is not why most of us buy these cars. So, whatever, have a nice day to you both.

Deluded?

4.3 seconds, you jackass. You can apologize via PM is you wish.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ic-test-review

No one said the stock M235 was traction limited to 60. Ever. No one said more traction would get a stock M235 to 4.1 seconds.

Pull some more strawmans out of your ass why don't you? Or is your reading comprehension that bad?

What was said was, as these cars start to reach the 350+ WHP mark (which an M235 is not), they all start bunching up around the 4 second mark. That is, WELL KNOWN, to be a product of limited traction coming into affect. This is not a new theory here. This is common knowledge. Obviously, there has been some movement below the 4 second mark in recent years, but that hasn't been because of increases in power to weight. It has more to do with improved TC, improved tires and improved transmissions. But very slight increases. a 600 HP M235 isn't suddenly running 3.0 to 60. It's going to run 3.7 or 3.8, because you just can't put it down in those lower gears.

[rosenbergendo]

You're a tool. There are tuned M235's all day that do 0-60 in 4.3. If you had a half a cerebellum you'd know this. As an ME before I went into the medical field I am very aware of Ff = μ N . Luckily I have surrounded myself with a team of people who have significantly more common sense or intelligence than you. Not "rich" just intelligent my friend.
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/m...o/IMG_0242.jpg
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/m...o/IMG_0554.jpg