Leaked: G42 2 Series Coupe in Black!

[CDN-Driver]

Originally Posted by ///AVM

Please edify me at this point . . . not sure what the 'bolt pattern' is referencing specifically?

///AVM

This Tire Rack article explains the concept:


https://m.tirerack.com/tires/tiretec....jsp?techid=92

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by frank.m2

Always wondered if this was another "Decision" charge for the sake of change by the new management.
There is literally no reason for this, the support for 5x120 patterns are plenty.
If they really wanted to do something good, should've gone to 5x114.3

Theres plenty of reason for it, principally mass reduction of the wheel, brake disc, hub, and output shafts without compromise to the load demand requirements.

5x114.3 is actually imperial 5x4.5" and is less desirable than a true metric based PCD.

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by ///AVM

Please edify me at this point . . . not sure what the 'bolt pattern' is referencing specifically?

///AVM

Bolt pattern is the arrangement and size of the wheel mounting in lug count and PCD (Pitch Circle Diameter).

5x112 = 5 lug with 112mm PCD.

[///AVM]

Thank you Len and CDN

With regard to the topic, I can be as critical as the next guy when it comes to certain BMW upper management decisions . . . but are we really getting to the point where the 'bolt pattern' is a point of contention?

///AVM

[OG///M]

Originally Posted by lemetier

Theres plenty of reason for it, principally mass reduction of the wheel, brake disc, hub, and output shafts without compromise to the load demand requirements.

5x114.3 is actually imperial 5x4.5" and is less desirable than a true metric based PCD.

Interesting. Does the pros outweighs the cons though? That is the question. Guess it differs depending on what you emphasize on.

It's still peculiar that they decide to do this now after years of 5x120. Instantly making all the wheels available up til now obsolete.

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by frank.m2

Interesting. Does the pros outweighs the cons though? That is the question. Guess it differs depending on what we emphasize.

It's still peculiar that they decide to do this now after years of 5x120

What are the cons? This decision was made more than 10 years ago, first appeared in 2013 with the i3 and applied to every new BMW UKL, FAAR, and CLAR based model introduced since.

[OG///M]

Originally Posted by lemetier

What are the cons? This decision was made more than 10 years ago, first appeared in 2013 with the i3 and applied to every new BMW UKL, FAAR, and CLAR based model introduced since.

Listed one of the cons in the previous post. Saying this was done in the name of weight saving while cranking out 3600lbs+ cars don't mean much.

[Db750]

As someone who was an early adopter for the m235 (wife drove one back in 2015 for a year or so) I'm not sure that "ugly design" is a new feature for the 2 series lol! The M version does look pretty good, but otherwise it's always been the worst looking coupe in the BMW lineup. By far.

[six75LT]

WHO are these bmw designers???

[bubsterino]

Originally Posted by wdeerfield

I wouldnt be surprised if the forthcoming 2er slots in size with the e92 and becomes the enthusiast 2 door of choice if it still gets a rwd option.

I think the 2 series has been that car for many of us for the last 5-6 years.

[135 TING]

Originally Posted by bm4w

[IMG][/IMG]

Originally Posted by bm4w

[IMG][/IMG]

I agree looks too much like the frs/brz

[NorCalAthlete]

Originally Posted by bubsterino

I think the 2 series has been that car for many of us for the last 5-6 years.

I just can't get over the rear half. Too squashed looking and whatnot. 4 has the perfect dimensions comparatively.

[RinconHeat]

Originally Posted by six75LT

WHO are these bmw designers???

Domagoj Dukec who is under Adrian van Hooydonk. Dukec is the main perpetrator of the new front ends and diminution of classic design elements.

[MmmmmM2]

Ewe.

[bubsterino]

Originally Posted by NorCalAthlete

I just can't get over the rear half. Too squashed looking and whatnot. 4 has the perfect dimensions comparatively.

:-)

it's funny - the 4 back has always felt too elongated /long for me. the balance has always felt off to me.

this is why it's nice to have options!

[NorCalAthlete]

Originally Posted by bubsterino

:-)

it's funny - the 4 back has always felt too elongated /long for me. the balance has always felt off to me.

this is why it's nice to have options!

Agreed! Although, if the G42 grows a few inches, it'd be the perfect combination of G interior and F kidney grills...

[bubsterino]

Originally Posted by NorCalAthlete

Agreed! Although, if the G42 grows a few inches, it'd be the perfect combination of G interior and F kidney grills...

even george carlin could agree with that!!!!

[NorCalAthlete]

Another interesting observation - the 2 (vs the 4) is more popular as a track weapon, but the M4 CS is faster around a track than the M2 CS...

[MarkDemma]

Originally Posted by NorCalAthlete

Another interesting observation - the 2 (vs the 4) is more popular as a track weapon, but the M4 CS is faster around a track than the M2 CS...

One would hope that a $137,000 M4 GTS is a few seconds quicker than a $84,595 M2 CS.

Also, comparing a "GTS" model to a "CS" model you have to consider what that means. From what I've read about the hierarchy, it's generally M Sport < M < M Competition < M CS < M GTS.

The M2 CS seems to be a M2C with some carbon fiber bits added and some other goodies, but honestly not THAT far off from a M2C. It's still something that could function as a daily.

If you've seen a M4 GTS ... it it practically a race car. No back seats, racing seats in front, roll bar, harsh harsh ride. In short, the only folks buying one of these uses it exclusively as a track car.

[NorCalAthlete]

Originally Posted by MarkDemma

One would hope that a $137,000 M4 GTS is a few seconds quicker than a $84,595 M2 CS.

Also, comparing a "GTS" model to a "CS" model you have to consider what that means. From what I've read about the hierarchy, it's generally M Sport < M < M Competition < M CS < M GTS.

The M2 CS seems to be a M2C with some carbon fiber bits added and some other goodies, but honestly not THAT far off from a M2C. It's still something that could function as a daily.

If you've seen a M4 GTS ... it it practically a race car. No back seats, racing seats in front, roll bar, harsh harsh ride. In short, the only folks buying one of these uses it exclusively as a track car.

Huh?

• BMW M lap times (source: here):
  
  • 7:27.88 = F82 M4 GTS (BMW)
  • 7:35 (previously 7:38) = F80 M3 CS + F82 M4 CS (BMW)
  • 7:35.90 = F90 M5 Competition (Sport Auto)
  • 7:37 = F82 M4 GTS (Sport Auto)
  • 7:38.92 = F90 M5 (Sport Auto)
  • 7:42.99 = F87 M2 CS (Sport Auto)

I mean correct me if I'm wrong here but F82 M4 CS vs F87 M2 CS is a far more direct comparison than F82 M4 GTS.

[MarkDemma]

Originally Posted by NorCalAthlete

Another interesting observation - the 2 (vs the 4) is more popular as a track weapon, but the M4 CS is faster around a track than the M2 CS...

Originally Posted by NorCalAthlete

Huh?



I mean correct me if I'm wrong here but F82 M4 CS vs F87 M2 CS is a far more direct comparison than F82 M4 GTS.

OK I read that wrong. My bad.

But the M2 is STILL the most bestest ///M ever, the spiritual successor to the E46 M3 which was also the most bestest ///M ever and the M4 is a fat cow no matter what your silly numbers say. So there.

[NorCalAthlete]

Originally Posted by MarkDemma

OK I read that wrong. My bad.

But the M2 is STILL the most bestest ///M ever, the spiritual successor to the E46 M3 which was also the most bestest ///M ever and the M4 is a fat cow no matter what your silly numbers say. So there.