[Roundown]

Originally Posted by Reedomn

Reports are indicating it will be faster, cheaper and a lower production car than the M2. Reminds me of the 1M.

Awesome car- kudos to VW. But...the understeer... Even w/ haldex, it's going to be a snow plow.

[cc3]

Latest article in June Car magazine. Can't help but feel the M2 is going to need at least 385 bhp at launch unless there are to be 2 versions? Launch 365 bhp and 'CSL' 400 bhp

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/spy-sho...uper-golf-gti/" rel="ugc" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://www.carmagazi...-golf-gti/</a>

[Rupes]

You guys saying the vw won't be faster on a track do understand that it will be awd, lighter, and more powerful than an M2, right? Unless there is a button marked "magic" (note - this is not the same as over boost) I don't think the m2 will come close.

[CF22]

It's been caught testing, knowing VW and the many times I've been burned with the ever so changing "availability" of the Golf R we won't have this in the U.S.

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/201...py-photos-news

[Karmic Man]

Originally Posted by Rupes

You guys saying the vw won't be faster on a track do understand that it will be awd, lighter, and more powerful than an M2, right? Unless there is a button marked "magic" (note - this is not the same as over boost) I don't think the m2 will come close.

They probably meant more fun to drive with RWD

I agree, M cars (M3/M5) in the past have always been running better times than competitors in their class. Looks like they might be caught with their pants down on this one with VW raising up to the challenge along with AMGs and Audi RSs.

If I am the Marketing head I would raise the M2 output to 400hp. M3/M4 can be raised to 450hp (that's what everyone believed the S55 makes, anyway).

[W///]

Originally Posted by Rupes

You guys saying the vw won't be faster on a track do understand that it will be awd, lighter, and more powerful than an M2, right? Unless there is a button marked "magic" (note - this is not the same as over boost) I don't think the m2 will come close.

Remember when the E9x M3s that we drive came out with a measly 420 hp and "no torque"? And look at what it was able to accomplish. I'd at least give the M2 the benefit of the doubt here.

Originally Posted by Karmic Man

They probably meant more fun to drive with RWD

I agree, M cars (M3/M5) in the past have always been running better times than competitors in their class. Looks like they might be caught with their pants down on this one with VW raising up to the challenge along with AMGs and Audi RSs.

If I am the Marketing head I would raise the M2 output to 400hp. M3/M4 can be raised to 450hp (that's what everyone believed the S55 makes, anyway).

No offense, but that's why you aren't. Where is this 400hp magic number coming from?

So if you agree that the S55 is underrated (which it is), what makes you think that the 365 hp claimed is not underrated?

[IS3andME]

Originally Posted by W///

Remember when the E9x M3s that we drive came out with a measly 420 hp and "no torque"? And look at what it was able to accomplish. I'd at least give the M2 the benefit of the doubt here.



No offense, but that's why you aren't. Where is this 400hp magic number coming from?

So if you agree that the S55 is underrated (which it is), what makes you think that the 365 hp claimed is not underrated?

I think the "400" came about when Porsche said that turbo flat 4 is capable of 400 hp. This engine will go into the next gen Boxster/Cayman. People were speculating that the GT4 would have this engine. Which means, it can produce more. And at roughly the same time VW did confirm that the R400 would be built

[IEDEI]

Originally Posted by Rupes

You guys saying the vw won't be faster on a track do understand that it will be awd, lighter, and more powerful than an M2, right? Unless there is a button marked "magic" (note - this is not the same as over boost) I don't think the m2 will come close.

absurd. putting 400hp in a car doesn't instantly make it perfect....LOL.

the stuff I read posted in the M2 forums is utterly tragic sometimes.

[Rupes]

Originally Posted by IEDEI

absurd. putting 400hp in a car doesn't instantly make it perfect....LOL.

the stuff I read posted in the M2 forums is utterly tragic sometimes.

So dispute it then - use your advanced knowledge of physics. Explain to me how a smaller, lighter, awd car with more power designed strictly with a track focus won't be faster than an M2. Unless they really screw something up with the brakes or suspension, I would find this hard to believe. I guess time will tell, but you sure do seem to be certain about something when all signs point to the opposite being true.

I didn't say it would be better to drive, I'm not sure that it will be, but most of the time the recipe above (lighter, awd, more powerful) = better track times.

[sth519]

It might get faster lap times because of AWD and more horsepower, and if the rumors are true, it will probably be a bit of a bargain compared to the cars it competes against (including the M2).

However, VW will have to work its magic a lot to make it as enjoyable to drive as an M car. That said, VW is quite good at magic in recent years...

Anyway, keep in mind:
- The weight difference between the standard Golf R (300hp) and the equivalent M135i is 30kg, so we don't know if the R400 will really be much lighter than the M2
- The Golf is based on a FWD platform, which also gives it less optimal weight distribution

I know a lot of people in this forum sneeze at the M135i/M235i because they can't match the "real" M cars in terms of feel and handling. However, the reason why the M135i and M235i are so popular is because of the way they drive compared to their actual rivals, which are all those FWD/AWD hot hatches (at least here in Europe).

Anyway, I'm really excited about the R400. I expect it to be a fast VW "turned to eleven", with all the pros and cons. That would make it a very nice car, though with different qualities than a fast BMW.

[Spook410]

A quick Google shows the weight as follows:

BMW 235 - 3765 lbs

VW Golf R - 3325 lbs

As for set up, Chris Harris rated the VW Golf R and the BMW 235 equivalent with a nod to the RWD setup for hooning.

The VW Golf R400 will likely be a very interesting and fun car. I do wonder about reliability pulling that much power from a 2 liter 4 cyl but that's still an unknown. Also we'll see if the car is widely available and at what price. I predict a bargain price of high 40's in the US and impossible to get.

As for how this relates to the BMW M2, don't know. We'll see how the M2 stacks up when it finally breaks cover. It will certainly be entering into a competitive market.

[sth519]

Originally Posted by Spook410

BMW 235 - 3765 lbs

VW Golf R - 3325 lbs

EU norm curb weight for the cars (= with 90% fuel, all other fluids topped up, and also including a 75kg driver) is:

Golf R: 1476kg
M135i: 1505kg
M235i: 1530kg

Sources: volkswagen.de, bmw.de

[Spook410]

Google does seem high.. Car and Driver says 3525 lbs with the Golf R at 3340 lbs. If the M2 comes in at the weight of a Golf R, that will be a good thing. Still wouldn't be close to the speed of a Golf R400, but straight line or even track speed aren't everything. Of course.. straight line.. track.. and $10K US difference in price.. comparable daily driver ability.. that could be everything.

As for the 135 weight, don't care and it's just annoying (damn US consumers). If they offered a 135 hatch in the US I would already own one and wouldn't even be here.

[moldcad]

Originally Posted by Delnari

. Will not have the refinement or upgraded electronics the M2 will have, but again it should be priced $10K less.

Funny you would say that - my Golf R mk7 ("just" 300 hp) is more refined than my M2235i. Sadly.

[Karmic Man]

Originally Posted by W///

Remember when the E9x M3s that we drive came out with a measly 420 hp and "no torque"? And look at what it was able to accomplish. I'd at least give the M2 the benefit of the doubt here.



No offense, but that's why you aren't. Where is this 400hp magic number coming from?

So if you agree that the S55 is underrated (which it is), what makes you think that the 365 hp claimed is not underrated?

Don't you know that 400hp is the base figure for a performance car being taken seriously these days

For me it comes from comparison with other performance car that is above under its class and competitors. What's wrong with 400hp+? All the better if you are happy with a lower power figure BUT I am not and don't try to tell me how much power I need.

I can't believe all the hype about the car in its current spec being faster on a track than a 400hp Golf (as if VW would engineered some retarded suspension/chassis design) or a M3/M4 (as if M3/M4 weren't engineered for performance) with pure speculation. I would ask the same thing where do all these premises come from? Wishful thinking I guess because we all hope to get more performance while paying for less and we placed a bit too much trust in the M brand.

[W///]

Originally Posted by Karmic Man

Don't you know that 400hp is the base figure for a performance car being taken seriously these days

For me it comes from comparison with other performance car that is above under its class and competitors. What's wrong with 400hp+? All the better if you are happy with a lower power figure BUT I am not and don't try to tell me how much power I need.

I can't believe all the hype about the car in its current spec being faster on a track than a 400hp Golf (as if VW would engineered some retarded suspension/chassis design) or a M3/M4 (as if M3/M4 weren't engineered for performance) with pure speculation. I would ask the same thing where do all these premises come from? Wishful thinking I guess because we all hope to get more performance while paying for less and we placed a bit too much trust in the M brand.

I'm not trying to tell you how much power you need. I just think it's a little ridiculous people pull number out of their asses. No one on this board has driven this car, but you guys are already claiming that it'll be slower? How the hell would you know?

We could sit here and argue about how much theoretical power the M2 needs, but where will that go? We could also sit around here and be like those guys that were saying 420hp and 295 ft-lbs of torque is simply not enough for the E9x M3. Because it needs to be more like 470hp otherwise it was a complete failure...

Feel free to skip to 4 mins. I'm not saying I take Top Gear as the gospel, but you get the idea

P.S. Doesn't sound like the M2 has much of a chance in your eyes. To me, going from a 1M to an M2 is kind of a parallel move.

Also, maybe it doesn't matter to anyone else, but the fact that the M2 will be the only car in this category with RWD and 6MT. That is something that is very important to me.

[BMW269]

I don't know where you a getting that:

VW Golf R (5 door, 4Motion, DSG) - 1,505 kg

Audi S3 (5 door, Quattro, S-Tronic) - 1,505 kg

Audi RS3 (5 door, Quattro, S-Tronic) - 1,595 kg

BMW M135i(5 door, sDrive, 6MT) - 1,505 kg

BMW M235i(Coupe, sDrive, 6MT) - 1,530 kg

BMW M4 (Coupe, 6MT) - 1,572 kg



The M2 will 100% not be heavier than the M4, other wise it will be an even greater failure than FWD BMW's. But I don't se it being much lighter than M235i either, as BMW has decided to cheapen is out, that means not 'add' lightness. As for the Golf R400, it will definitely be heavier than the M2, just as the RS3 is. Golf R400 does not come with 2.0l I4 but with 2.5l I5, thus its similar weight to RS3.

Originally Posted by W///

We could sit here and argue about how much theoretical power the M2 needs, but where will that go? We could also sit around here and be like those guys that were saying 420hp and 295 ft-lbs of torque is simply not enough for the E9x M3. Because it needs to be more like 470hp otherwise it was a complete failure....

Yep, a bit like the GS-F is a complete failure because is has only 470 PS as opposed to 570 PS.

Originally Posted by W///

Also, maybe it doesn't matter to anyone else, but the fact that the M2 will be the only car in this category with RWD and 6MT. That is something that is very important to me.

Not the only car. The Toyota 86 also is RWD and 6MT, not to forget the classic MX-5.

[trey100]

Originally Posted by W///

When BMW says 370 hp, it's more like 370 whp most of the time, which on a car that small (and hopefully as light as possible), I don't see how that's plenty. If it isn't, then it's time to get a car with an S55 or S63.

Unfortunately they don't do Individual for the 2er, so very much doubt you'll be able to get Atacama Yellow. I'm all for an Austin Yellow M2 though

I know BMW underrates slightly but I don't remember seeing stated horsepower as wheel horsepower. There was an article in R&T I believe where they tested the n54, n55, is version of the N54, and in a later article the S55. The S55 was like 375 whp which is in line with 425 HP +\-. The Nx models were closer at 270ish if I remember but still not equal to crank hp.

[ABPReader]

.

[W///]

Originally Posted by jet_00

Yes, and don't forget the Ferrari F40 which is also RWD but 5MT (still manual). Oh sh*t, he was talking about the cars in the same category (Rs3, Golf R400, ...)

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by jet_00

Yes, and don't forget the Ferrari F40 which is also RWD but 5MT (still manual). Oh sh*t, he was talking about the cars in the same category (Rs3, Golf R400, ...)

The F40 is indeed no match for the M2: the M2 has one exhaust tip/pipe more.

[Lucky13]

The "Magic" of VW in the U.S.

2013 sales down 7%
2014 sales down 10%
2015 sales YTD down 8%

Truly magical in the a market that was going exactly the opposite. What magic did I miss?