BMW M2 Posts Surprisingly Low Numbers on the Dyno – VIDEO

BMW M2, Interesting | April 8th, 2016 by 16
Capture2 1 750x500

When it comes to BMWs and dynos, people are usually expecting higher than rated numbers. Most of the time, we find the power the engines …

When it comes to BMWs and dynos, people are usually expecting higher than rated numbers. Most of the time, we find the power the engines should be putting out at the crank are usually read at the wheel, so either transmission losses are really low or the figures claimed by BMW are underrated. Apparently, it’s a different story with the latest M model, the M2.

The guys from The Fast Lane Car put one “baby-M” on the dyno and the results they got were lower than expected this time. According to their read-out, the car made about 287 HP and and 366 lb-ft (496 Nm) of torque at the wheels. Even if we take into consideration a rather generous 15 percent ratio of transmission loss, that adds up to about 330 HP at the crank. That’s still shy of the claimed 365 HP advertised by BMW.

Capture 8 750x366

We should certainly take into consideration the fuel used – 91 octane. Furthermore, the test was done at a considerable altitude, which also cuts into the output.

The good news is that there’s more torque on tap than we thought. BMW says that the M2’s reworked N55 engine makes 343 lb-ft (365 Nm) of torque, with an occasional spike up to 369 lb-ft (500 Nm) of torque, thanks to overboost. With a 15 percent transmission loss that would go down to about 290 lb-ft (393 Nm) of torque, and up to 313 lb-ft (424 Nm) of torque with overboost. The 366 lb-ft (496 Nm) found on the dyno are more in tune with what BMW got us used to in recent years.


16 responses to “BMW M2 Posts Surprisingly Low Numbers on the Dyno – VIDEO”

  1. FilipMPower says:

    There is no way these HP figures are accurate, people driving the car would have realised that something was funky as it would not feel faster than the M235i. Probably is the fuel and altitude which was mentioned, or the fast lane car just received a lemon with some faults in the engine.

    • JohnJay says:

      I suspect that more than low octane gas and altitude contributed to the poor dyno numbers. The torque curve drops off quickly after peaking at 2000 rpm. M235i and M4 dyno runs have very flat torque curves up to 4500 and 5500 rpm respectively.

      Perhaps not enough airflow detected by the car has it pulling back on the ignition.

  2. Nate says:

    At 1 mile above sea level (which they are slightly above that) it would drop 57.5 hp from the 363 hp (305 hp) minus transmission losses and whatnot would result in far lower than the 287 hp posted.

    • Nate says:

      On second thought, the turbo would help offset a little bit of that initial 58 hp loss, so the numbers may be spot on.

  3. Andy says:

    Theres so many things i wanna say to their retarded faces right now!!!!! First off: 91 octane??? REALLY??!!! Then, the car is not on full power until after the break-in check at 2k. You trash a great car like that, running it on a dyno while its got low mileage, just to be the first to post an idiotic video.

  4. james res says:

    Dyno results can vary greatly. Still, the m2 should be putting up bigger numbers even if it’s at slightly higher altitude and with “only” 91 octane. Looks like the m4 is back to the top of the list…

    • Jake says:

      M2 performs almost as well as the m4 on every track in some instances better (with apparently much less power) yet this guy decides no because of a dyno…

      • james res says:

        The m4 outperforms its rated hp spec. The m2 way under. Besides, every other component on the the m2 is built to a price point and it shows. I could have lived with the other shortcomings but not if it underperforms this much.

        • Gabriel Nica says:

          The results shown here have to be taken with a huge grain of salt. For one thing, the guys from The Fast Lane car are known for messing things up and secondly, the car was obviously not performing correctly. As JohnJay mentioned above, the curves don’t look right at all, dropping drastically, instead of remaining flat as they’re supposed to. My guess is that the airflow that was going into the engine wasn’t enough, therefore the ignition was adjusted to keep things safe.

        • bmw driver says:

          Sorry, you must not have driven them back to back. I have. The M4 is not as fun and enjoyable as the M2. They were nearly equally as fast (on track) but the M2 was so much more fun. Enough that I slowed down to focus on just balancing and adjusting the car through each corner and just feeling it respond to me.

          Very different to the super-grippy M4 with its on/off throttle. It was fast and capable but it felt like a chore to hustle it around a track. There so much grip on a long wheelbase that you have to push incredibly hard to get the car to move around and the margins for you to exert that control (gripping vs edge of grip vs sliding) are so slim that it’s hard to just control the car. It felt like I was always managing it instead.

          Add in the sound of the M2, which absolutely destroys the M4’s, and you get a special, intoxicating driving experience. It’s a car that you just want to drive and drive and drive. It’s the most fun and rewarding car BMW make as far as I’m concerned.

          Judging by your last sentence, If you need a big, grippy, over powered, luxo-mobile to convince other people, the M2 is not for you. If you remember what BMWs used to be all about, and have been missing that, you’ll be happy with the M2. I will absolutely be ordering an M2 over the M4 or M3 (and I have kids!).

          • james res says:

            That’s crazy you were able to drive an m2 – let alone on a track. But still, the m4 only weighs ~100lbs more yet according to this dyno has over 100 more hp. I would easily trade 100lbs for 100hp. Like most people, I don’t track, so I’d rather have that extra power on tap for fun. If fun for you is being able to wind the engine out and whipping it around a track, get a brz(or two).

            The m4 wheelbase is only 4 inches longer.. but the m2 is 2 inches taller…

            M4 is the better buy. Better power to weight, lower center of gravity, carbon fiber bits instead of stamped steel, much better dash, nappa leather, etc. M2 cuts costs to meet a pricepoint – not a fan of that.

            I get where you’re coming from, and I wanted to like the m2 as much as the next guy. I used to have an e46 m3 and that was a fun car. I was expecting the m2 to be a better version of it. But it’s still just a runty 2 series with m badges that under delivers.

            I don’t care what anyone thinks since most people can’t the difference looking at any bmw anyway…But I’ll think it every time I see an m2…

  5. bmw driver says:

    Having driven an M2 at the track, I’ll say that these figures are way off. I drove the M2, M235i and an M4. The M235i wasn’t much different in performance from my modified 328i. The M2 and M4 were almost indistinguishable in terms of acceleration. If I had to guess, I’d say the M2 is probably around 360 at the wheels at least. It was so much faster than the M235i it wasn’t funny and it hauled like an absolute lunatic to the +-7500rpm redline. It practically begged you to hit the limiter in every gear. And the sound… OMG. An exotic, authentic growling howl that climbs and climbs. A million times better than the M3/4. On a stock exhaust, it was better than the M-Perf exhaust on the M4. That engine is one of the great BMW engines and deserves an S designation.

    • voovoodoojoo says:

      I don’t believe you mate lots of people who reported on it say the power fizzles at about 5500 and the dont feel the need to rag it to the redline funny that

  6. Kaisuke971 says:

    Apparently someone else made a dyno run and obtained 331whp and 325wtq (lb-ft). Seems more like it, but we only see the dyno run and not the data on camera (which is less reliale as a source). But it’s a tuning company and they have an early M2, so it has great chances to be legit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *